। | der’ sd bate
|
Bodleian Libraries
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
This book is part of the collection held by the Bodleian Libraries and scanned by Google, Inc. for the Google Books Library Project.
For more information see:
http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/dbooks
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England & Wales (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) licence.
A 1. 2/
BIBLIOTHECA INDICA ; COLLECTION OF ORIENTAL WORKS
ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL.
N € ५ \ oe is SANKHYA-SARA; >
A TREATISE OF
SANKHYA PHILOSOPHY,
BY
VIJNANA BHIKSHU.
EDITED BY FITZ-EDWARD HALL, D. C. L., Oxon., MEMBER OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETIES OF BENGAL AND PARIS, OF THE ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY, OF THE AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY, OF
THE ORIENTAL SOCIETY OF GERMANY, AND OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
AND
H. 1.8 INSPECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION FOR THE CENTRAL PROVINCES.
CALCUTTA : PRINTED BY C. B. LEWIS, BAPTIST MISSION PRESS.
1862.
VS
PREFACK.*
Two systems of philosophy, attributed, respectively, to Kapila and to Patanjali, are designated, by the Hindus, as Sankhya ;+ a term which common usage restricts, however,
* Together with the addition of much new matter, I here offer a substitute for my preface to the Sankhya-pravachana-bhdshya. My edition of that book is now out of print; and I have no intention of publishing another. Since writing the pages which introduced it, my views touching the Sankhya have, owing to further study, under- gone a very great change.
+ The first system is known as niris'wara ; the second, as ses’ wara. The following half-couplet, to this effect, is from the +Shad-dars'ana- samuchchaya :
aig fattacr कचित् कचिदौञ्चरदेवताः।
The Jainas claim to have their own Saénkhya, 11114088, &ec. Mackenzie Collection, Vol. I1., p. xxxvi. '
As explanatory of the ensuing extracts, it should be mentioned, that Kapila has hitherto generally been considered as the author of the Sénkhya-pravachana, and that it has been the universal custom to render niris wara by ^ atheistic.”
“ Cependant, il n’est guére supposable que Colebrooke se soit trompé en disant que Kapila nie 11466 de Dieu. II n’a fait que reproduire les accusations directes que 1146 elle-méme a portées contre lui; et, comme ces accusations incontestables ne sont pas justifiées pleinement par les slokas de la Karika, il reste que ce soient les Sotitras qui les justifient., Dans aucun de ceux que nous avous traduits, cette déplorable doctrine ne s’est montrée positivement a découvert ; mais je crois pouvoir affirmer, dés 4 présent, qu’elle est en effet dans quelques autres, comme l’affirment les commentateurs
2
to the former. Htymologically considered, sdnkhya is imme-
indiens et Colebrooke.” M. Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire: Premier Mémoire sur le Sinkhya, pp. 271, 272. ¦
Again, of Colebrooke as entertaining the view, that Kapila is “atheistic :” “Il Vavait empruntée lui-méme aux commentateurs indiens.”’ Id., zbid., p. 5.
This is scarcely exact. Colebrooke, the last of men to conde- scend, save unavoidably, to statements in train, does much more than “simply reproduce” the charge of “atheism” against Kapila, “borrowing it from Indian commentators.” He refers, by numbers, to several of what have been taken for Kapila’s own aphorisms, as being implicitly “atheistic ;’ and he translates one of them, I., 92, by the words “ There is no proof of God’s existence.” Jliscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., pp. 251, 252.
Alike in both the Sankhyas, there is acknowledgment of a being superior to the gods. He is made up of an immaterial part, purusha, or “person,” and of an anta’karana, or “ internal organ.” His person is unintelligent; and, for his internal organ, by virtue of which he is intelligent, he is indebted to the promptuary of all matter, prakriti. Precisely such, it is taught, is the constitution of man, beasts, &c. Thus far both the Sankhyas concur. But, according to Patanjali’s, the Yoga, the एला above spoken of, whom it calls I's'wara, has the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and eternalness ; his material genesis being in the way of eternal and periodically recurrent emana- tion from prakritit. The niris'wara Sankhya simply denies to any being,—even to its Hiranyagarbha,—the last of the attributes just enumerated. The reader is now prepared to decide, whether the doctrine ascribed to Kapila differs from the Yoga in such a manner as to justify the application to it of the epithet ^ atheistic;” and whether the Yoga, on the strength of its Is’wara, is entitled to the appellation of “ theistic.”
In the Sankhyas, purusha, “person,” and déman, “spirit,” are synonymes. All that is not matter is spirit ; and, as embodied, it is found in whatever possesses life, vegetation included. Jtva, “soul,” is any spirit, in its aspect of incorporation. The I's/wara of the Yoga has no body, and is not a jiva. The Hiranyagarbha of the other Sankhya has a body, and therefore is a jiva.
3
diately allied to sankhyd ;* a word bearing the acceptation of
“Person” and ‘ soul,” it will have been observed, are here used in senses of accommodation. And so one has to use, in general, the terminology of our metaphysics and theology, when applied to express Hindu conceptions.
On the subject of repudiating I’s’wara, see the Sdankhya-pravacha- na, 1., 92-99; III., 56, 57 ; V., 2—12, and 46; and VL., 64.
Even a limited inspection of Indian commentators on the Sénkhya would have evinced to M. Saint-Hilaire, that they are, mostly, as delicate as he is himself, in respect of charging Kapila with the denial of I’s’wara. See a subsequent note.
* M. Saint-Hilaire, in the opening words of his analysis of the Sankhya, confounds the paronymes sankhyé and sdnkhya: “ Le mot de Sinkhya, qui est devenu le nom du systéme de Kapila, signifie nombre ; et, pris adjectivement, numeral. I1 signifie encore, dans une acception assez voisine : calcul, supputation, jugement, raisonne- ment.” Premier Mémoire, &c., p. 19.
Dr. Roer also says: “The term Sdénkhya has two meanings, enu- meration and investigation.” Lecture on the Sankhya Philosophy, 7. 8.
The word sénkhya, as affording a variety of significations, is made the subject of a laborious pun, in the initial couplet of Bhaskara Achiarya’s Bija-ganita,
Charitrasinha Gani, a Jaina,in his gloss on Haribhadra Siri’s Shad-dars' ana-samuchchaya, makes astatement, with reference to the origin of the word saénkhya, which, as being altogether novel, deserves to be produced. While acknowledging the connexion of Kapila with the Sdnkhya, he avers, that the followers of that doctrine receive their appellation from the first doctor of their school, Sankha, or Sankha. His words are: argjfafa कापिलद् ५नम्। अद्पुरषनिमि- भोयं wat! And elsewhere: साह्न दति पुरुषनिमित्तथं सक्ता सङ्कुष्य दमे BB! ATA वा एकारः | शङ्घुनामाऽऽदिपुरषः |
S’ankha, the lawgiver, is classed, with Kapila, as témasa, in the Pishandotpatti chapter of the Padma-purdna, latter section.
For an account of the Shad-dars‘ana-samuchchaya, I would refer the reader to my Contribution towards an Index to the Bibliography of the Indian Philosophical Systems. In that volume many particu-
कै
4
“‘number,” and also that of “decision.”* But the time has
lars will be found, regarding books and authors, which appeared in my preface to the Sankhya-pravachana-bhashya, but are here omitted.
* Colebrooke says: “ A system of philosophy in which precision of reckoning is observed in the enumeration of its principles, is deno- minated Sdnkhya; a term which has been understood to signify numeral, agreeably to the usual acceptation of sankhyd, number: and hence its analogy to the Pythagorean philosophy has been presumed. But the name may be taken to imply,” &९. Aliscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 229.
Adverting to these words, M. Saint-Hilaire observes: “ Colebrooke s’est laissé tromper par l’apparence et par une fausse analogie, en pronongant le nom de Pythagore a ९606 de celui de Kapila.” Premier Mémoire, &c., p. 19.
Again, tbid., p. 20: “Si Colebrooke a eu tort de rapprocher le nom de Pythagore de celui du philosophe indien,” &c.
But Colebrooke, as, from his guarded and adversative mode of expression, is quite clear, delivers, in the preceding extract, neither his own opinions nor even opinions which, until the adduction of further evidence, he would be thought to accept. Professor Wilson—Oxford Sankhyakarikd, Preface, p. x1.,—cites, it is true, the words ^^ and hence its analogy to the Pythagorean philosophy has been presumed,” and without comment as to the paternity of the surmise. It may have escaped him, that he had formerly written: “ The first Indian school, the leading tenets of which are described by Mr. Colebrooke, is the Sankhya; aterm which has been understood to signify nwmeral, and which, therefore, perhaps suggested to Sir William Jones his com- parison of it to the Pythagorean doctrine.” Quarterly Oriental Magazine, Vol. IV., pp. 11, 12: for September, 1825.
Colebrooke alludes, without doubt, to the following passage : “On the present occasion, it will be sufficient to say, that the oldest head of a sect whose entire work is preserved, was—according to some authors,—Kapila; not [?] the divine personage, a reputed grandson [son] of Brahmé, to whom Krishna compares himself in the Gita, but a sage of his name, who invented the Sankhya, or Numeral, phi- losophy ; which Krishna himself appears to impugn, in his conversa- tion with Arjuna; and which, as far as I can recollect it from a few
५
5
long passed by for ascertaining, beyond doubt, what was
original texts, resembled, in part, the metaphysics of Pythagoras, and, in part, the theology of Zeno.” Sir William Jones’s Works, Vol. I., pp. 163, 164: 4to ed. of 1799.
Sir William, at an earlier date, had pushed his hypothetical analogies much further than this. “Of the Philosophical Schools it will be sufficient, here, to remark, that the first Mydya seems analogous to the Peripatetic ; the second, sometimes called Vais’e- shika, to the Ionic; the two ALimadnsds, of which the second is often distinguished by the name of Veddnta, to the Platonic; the first Sankhya, to the Italic ; and the second, or Pétanjala, to the Stoic, philosophy : so that Gautama [Gotama] corresponds with Aristotle ; Kanada, with Thales; Jaimini, with Socrates; Vyasa, with Plato ; Kapila, with Pythagoras; and Patanjali, with Zeno. But an ac- curate comparison between the Grecian and Indian Schools would require a considerable volume.” Jodid., Vol. I., pp. 860, 361.
Vijndna Bhikshu, in the Sdnkhya-pravachana-bhashya, explains sankhyé to signify “the setting forth of spirit as distinct from pra- kriti:” aay सम्यग् विवेक नाऽत्मकथनम्।
Raghunatha Tarkavagis’a Bhattacharya makes it one with “ consi- deration :” पञ्चविंशति तच्वानां war विचारः | तमधि्छत्य छता we साद् दति साद्यपद् बयत्यत्तिः स॒ ङग च्छते। Sankhya-tattwa-vilasa.
Deva Tirtha Swamin takes it to import “orderly enunciation
कस्मात् साह्यमित्युच्यते । सम्यक् क्रमपूव्कं प्यानं कथनं यस्यां सा VAT murat विचारणा। यत् तामध्य छृतं तस्मात् साहुवृमिव्युच्यते wey! Sankhya-taranga
According to a sacred text, adduced by S’ankara Acharya, in his commentary on the Vishnu-sahasra-naman, sankhya means ^^ know- ledge of the true nature of pure spinit.” We read:
मदषिः कपिलाचायः aaa मेदिनौपतिः।
ayia: कपिलाचाये इति सविेषणमकं नाम महां खाऽसाटषिश्वेति सदषिः छ- त्सस्य वदस्य दशेनात। अन्ये तु वेदेकदेणदभ्नादटषयः। कपिलखाऽ्ने Wagaya शएदवात्मत वि ज्ञानस्याऽऽचाय खेति कपिला चायः | मषिं खास कपिलाचायैखति मदषिकपिलाचायेः |
ष्एद्वात्मत विज्ञानं साह्नुमित्यभिधौयते |
दति व्यासस्म्तेः। wii vad कपिलं महान्तमिति wa feat कपिला
म॒निरिति aay |
0
originally intended by thus denominating the aforesaid schemes of speculation.
~~~ EL ~
The Mahabharata, XIII., 7006, is here annotated.
I had hoped to find in the legal institutes of Vyasa the line cited above. Not being there, probably it is buried in some Purana.
S’ankara’s own definition is in these words: “ The reflecting, that the gunas,—goodness, passion, and darkness,—are objects of my per- ception ; and that I, distinct from them, am spectator of their oper- ations, eternal, heterogeneous from the gunas, spirit.” सादनं नाम <a सत्रजस्तमांसि गणा मम eu we तेभ्यान्यस्तद्यापारसाकिभूता नित्या गुणएविलच्तण अत्ति चिन्तनम् । Gité-bhashya, ए 11. 12
How to translate guna here, I know not. On this term, I shall by and by remark.
The Mahdbhérata, a higher authority than any as yet brought forward, associates sdnkhya, very significantly, with parisankhydna, which seems to have the sense of “ exhaustive enumeration :”
साहुनज्ञानं प्रवच्यासि परिसह्यानद भनम् | XIT., 11393. Again :
ae श्नमेतावत् परिसह्ूयानद् शनम् सदाः Wea चव प्रकृतिं च प्रचच्तत॥ तच्लानि च चतुवि शत् परिसह्भया य त्तः | साधुया; स प्रकृत्या तु निसः पञ्चविं एकः ॥
+ 11., 11409-10.
Part of this extract is quoted in the Sdnkhya-pravachana-bhashya, but worded somewhat differently.
Adwaiténanda, in his Brahma-vidydbharana, an expositorial work connected with the Aphorisms of the Vedanta, suggests, that the word panchavins’ati, adduced from the sacred writings as defining the number of the Sankhya principles, may intend 20 x 5 instead of 20 + 5. This conceit might be abundantly disproved. See the stanza last given, and the Mahabharata, XII., passim, but, parti- cularly, chapters 307, 308, 309.
agra aay तछप्रमाणप्रकारसवोत्मता। What can be the drift of this mysterious announcement? It occurs in Prithwidhara Achdrya’s Rtatna-kos'a, near the end.
7
In the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-gité, and other ancient Hindu books, we encounter, in combination, the doctrines which, after having been subjected to modifications that rendered them, as wholes, irreconcilable, were distinguished, at an uncertain period, into what have, for many ages, been styled the Sankhya and the Vedauta.*
Though Kapila is held to have originated the distinctive tenets of the Sankhya,t it is extremely questionable whether—
* It is, further, a great mistake to suppose, that the Sankhya-yoga of the Bhagavad-gitad is a peculiar system of eclecticism, or of com- promise, that had vogue contemporaneously with the Sénkhya and the Yoga as we now understand them. Quite unknown, in the twilight days of Krishna and Arjuna, were the distinctions which at present discriminate those systems. Krishna has much to say of Brahma: upon his predecessor, Kapila, in all probability the concep- tion had not dawned. ‘The jdea, that Kapila denied Is’wara, was, it is quite possible, merely inferred, long after his time, from the bare fact of his silence. Who can say that, when he lived, the notion of an Ys/wara had as yet been elaborated ?
† In only a single text that I know of is the Sankhya ascribed to 8/1. lahdbhdrata, XII., 10388. At the same place, the Yoga also is said to have been originated by that divinity.
In the Bhagavata-purana, I., 3, 11, Kapila is spoken of as having only revived the Sankhya. From the same work, IX., 8, 14, it appears, however, to be asserted, that he created it. ‘The ensuing couplet, from the last section of the Padma-purdna, is to the same purpose:
खेत द्वौपपतिः साद्ुवप्रणेता सवेसिद्धिरा् | विश्वप्रकाशितिज्ञानयेगेा माहतमिखद्धा ॥ Vishnu-vytha-bheda-varnana chapter.
A Hindu would harmonize these discordant statements by assum- ing, that they point to passages in two several stages of the world’s history.
A facile and potential solvent of all difficulties as to time, space, and individuals, is the transparently indolent dogma of cyclical reno- vations of cosmic events. ‘These iterations admitting of an indefinite
8
even if he was an author,—the Sdnkhya-pravachana, now current under his name, can be referred to him on tenable grounds. And, if this ^^ Six Lectures,” at least as we possess it, is not of his composition, most assuredly neither is the Tattwa- samdsa.* These works, it is observable, are nowhere cited
number of changes in particulars, anybody may, at last, be almost anybody else; and it thus becomes a very easy matter to make light, among other things, of ordinary chronological sequence.
Swapnes’wara, author of the AKawmudi-prabha, acquainted as he was with the aphorisms of Panchas‘ikha, attributes to him the “‘Sd4nkhya Aphorisms” also. He accounts for its bearing the title of Kédpila, by the circumstance, that Kapila initiated the Sankhya tradi- tion as set forth therein. By way of illustration, he notes the notorious appropriation to Manu of the code of laws set forth by Bhrigu. His meaning is, that Kapila only propounded the matter of the Aphorisms, of which the present shape is due to Panchas’ikha. He may, then, be supposed to lay to the account of humility the absence from Panchas’/ikha’s name, in the Sankhya Aphorisms,—as the “ Six Lectures” alone deserves to be called,—of the honorific title of Achérya. Against this it might be argued, that a saint so lowly would be likely to mention, at least a few times, the name of the leading rabbi of his school. Panchas‘ikha, as we shall see, is spoken of in two places in the Sankhya-pravachana; Kapila, not at all. Swapnes wara, it should be added, gives what is here repeated, as nothing but rumour. His words are: पञ्चशिखः सूचकार आसुरि शिष्यः | afvefata प्रसिद्धिस्तु सम्प्रदायप्र्त्तः wasmedfeataiad मनु समाद्डया।
* Little as we can respect the allegations of Hindu writers on such a point as that before us, still it is curious to see what those allegations are.
The anonymous author of the Sarvopakdrini relates, as an ancient tradition, that Kapila the incarnation of Vishnu composed the Zattwa- samasa, and that, in aftertimes, another Kapila, a manifestation of Fire, published the larger body of Sankhya Aphorisms, of which the ‘Compendium of Principles’? was the rudiment. The same tradi- tion makes the doctrines of other, unnamed, philosophical schools, besides the Saénkhya, no less than the Six Lectures, to have sprung
9
by S’ankara Achdrya, by Vachaspati Mis’ra, or by any other
from the Zuttwa-samisa. WQarsasaicamannaealaagtagfaarta- नाथदीनानदिधोषः परमल्गलः खतःसिद्धत्लज्ञाना मदगष्िभेगावान् कपिला दाविंशतिखचाण्यपादि चत् gaara स्ट मिति fe युत्यत्तिः। तत ta: समस्तत- वानां सकलष्टितन््राथान। Aq भवति। दतश्वदं सकलसाह्नृतौथमलभतं तोथान्तराणि चेतत्प्रपञ्चभनान्येव। सखचषडध्यायौतु ब॑ख्चानरावतारभगवत्कपिल- प्रणोत।। दूयंतु द्वाविंशतिस्ची तद्या अपि बोजभता नारायणावनतारमदषि- WAIHI TSIM ata Tali |
Vijnana Bhikshu says,in his Sdnkhya-pravachana-bhdshya: तच्चस मासा- पयसे: साऽस्याः Tey पानरक्तयमिति चेन् मेवं सङ्कपविस्तररूपणाभयारप्य- Git eae | SACS: TSA A यागद्शएनस्यव सा्ुुत्रवचनख्क्तृा Val! ततल amare दि यत् sign साद्ुनद श्नं aaa yavanna निवेचनसिति। विशष- स्त्व यत् USUI तच्छसमासाष्यक्ताश्विस्तरमाचं यागदशन ल्भ्यामभ्यपगमवा- asfafaqecace निरूपणन न्यनतापरि दा राऽपोति। “ If it be alleged, that the Tattwa-samasa apborisms are simply iterated in the Six Lectures, the answer is, that it is not so: forthere is no mere repetition between the two; inasrauch as they are, respectively, concise and expanded. Hence, the appellation of Sdankhya-pravachana is suitable to the Six Lectures, in like manner as it is to the Institute of the Yoga The former embraces precisely a detailed exposition of the Tattwa- samdsa, the shorter Sdnkhya Institute. There is this difference, however ; that the Six Lectures only expands the subject-matter of the Zattwa-samdsa ; whereas the Institute of the Yoga avoids their seeming deficiency, by expressly recognizing Is’‘wara, whom both the other works, by concession for sake of argument, deny.”
Our commentator, further on, grows more confident ; passing from the language of assumption, as it were, to that of positive assertion :
सङ्किप्तसाद्ुनृसचाणामथेष्याऽज UAT | We येोगवद् वेदं साहुनुप्रवचनाभिधम्
“This Institute, equally with that of the Yoga, as being a deve- lopment of the substance of the shorter Sankhya Aphorisms, is designated Sdnkhya-pravachana, or, ‘ Explication of the Sankhya’.”
I am aware, that this couplet is susceptible of another construc- tion ; but that here put upon it is unforced, and, besides, accords with the sense of thepassage from the Sarvopakarini. More than this, if the Sankhya Aphorisms are called Sdnkhya-pravachana, as being
10
writer of considerable antiquity, or even in the Sarva-dars'ana-
an expansion, it is reasonable to believe, that Vijnéna designed to explain why the Yoga Aphorisms also are so designated.
Colebrooke, having in view a portion, if not all, of the foregoing extracts, writes as follows : “ It appears, from the preface of the Aapzla- bhashya, that a more compendious tract,-in the same form of sitras, or aphorisms, bears the title of Zattwa-samdsa, and is ascribed to the same author, Kapila. The scholiast intimates, that both are of equal authority, and in no respect discordant ; one being a summary of the greater work, or else this an amplification of the conciser one. The latter was probably the case; for there is much repetition in the Sankhya-pravachana.
“Tf the authority of the scholiast of Kapila may be trusted, the Tattwa-samasa is the proper text of the Sankhya ; and its doctrine is more fully, but separately, set forth by the two ampler treatises entitled Sankhya-pravachana, which contain a fuller exposition of what had been there succinctly delivered.” Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., pp. 231, 252.
Dr. Roer,—Journal of the <Asiatie Society of Bengal, for 1851, p. 402, note,—after citing the latter of the paragraphs given above, unaccountably adds: “ But this is a misapprehension: the scholiast does only say ‘they are of equal authority, one being a summary of the greater work, or else this an amplification of the conciser On the contrary, as will have been seen, the scholiast allows no such alternative, and is responsible for only the second member
9 33 .
one
of it. Colebrooke, to be sure, has made out Vijnana to be self-con- tradictory. At the same time, the clause to which Dr. Roer excepts is almost a literal translation of the scholiast’s own words.
M. Saint-Hilaire says, speaking of the Sankhya Aphorisms: “ Ce ६078106, quoique. assez court, a été abrégé, dit-on, par Kapila, sous le titre de Tattva 8818828, c’est-a-dire, réduction substantielle du San- khya. Nous ne connaissons ce dernier ouvrage que par les citations qu’en ont faites les commentateurs, et qu’a répétées Colebrooke d’aprés eux (Hssays, tome I., p. 281). Premier Mémoire, &९., p. ॐ
Whence did the writer learn, for certain, that Kapila abridged the Sdnkhya-pravachana? Again, the phrase “reduction substantielle’
11
sangraha, which is dated so late as the fourteenth century ; and
scarcely answers to Tattwa-samasa, and only on the theory of such an abridgment. Moreover, Colebrooke would be explored in vain for a single quotation from the smaller treatise.
Vijnana plainly rests the validity of adjudging the title of Sdn- khya-pravachana to the Six Lectures, on the ground, that it is an expan- sion of the Zattwa-samdsa; this being the embryo of also another collection of aphorisms called Sankhya-pravachana, that belonging to the Yoga. But this derivation of the Yoga Aphorisms is unestablished, save by Vijnana’s own word. It may be suspected, that his sole foundation of fact is, the common application of the term Sdnkhya to the system called from Kapila and to that of the Yoga. ` Colebrooke—AMiscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 282,—is disposed to think, that the title of Sadnkhya-pravachana, in its application to the Sankhya Aphorisms, is borrowed. For my part, I have little doubt, that one of the original borrowers was Vijnana Bhikshu. Except in the writings of that author, and of his followers, I have nowhere met with the employment of Sénkhya-pravachana, otherwise than to name the Yoga Aphorisms, but in the postscript to Aniruddha’s commentary, and in that to its abridgment by Vedanti Mahadeva. But the epigraphs to Indian manuscripts are known to be, so gener- ally, the work of copyists, that the adverse evidence of these two apparent exceptions may, very allowably, be neglected.
With regard to the meaning of the title Sankhya-pravachana, M. Saint-Hilaire could not have done better than consult Vijnana, whose explanation of it he seems, however, to be unacquainted with. At p. 5 of his Premier Mémoire, &c., he translates those words by “ Préface ou Introduction au Sankhya.” However speculative Vij- nana may be in what he says of the germinal character of the Zuttwa- samdsa, there is no ground to mistrust his etymological analysis of the word pravachana, as here used. In one place, as we have seen, he explains it by prakarshena nirvachanam, “ detailed exposition ;” and, in another, by prapanchana, “development,” or “explication.” In the Pédtanjala-bhashya-varttika, he defines it, again as a member of Sdnkhya-pravachana,—the proper name, according to Vyasa, of the Yoga Aphorisms,—by words expressing “ detailed statement :” साहूप्रवचन tial Vaya प्रकषण वचनं साह्ुयुप्रवचनम्। Nigoji
12
their style, moreover, exhibits scarcely a perceptible trace of archaism. Indeed, the larger collection of sentences derived to us as, putatively, Kapila’s, whatever its more general source, may be suspected of occasional obligation to the Karikds of Is'warakrishna.*
Bhatta, in his Patanjala-sttra-vritti-bhdshya-chchhiyd-vyakhyd, silent- ly transcribes Vijnaéna’s derivation: एतस्य साह्ूयुत्रवचनल तु साहुयक्तष्यव भकष वचनात्|
* I, 124, of the Sankhya-pravachana runs thus :
हेतुमद्नित्यमव्यापि सक्रियमनेकसमासितं fara
This, to a syllable, is the first half of the tenth दद्व
I., 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, are as follows: संडतपराशेत्वात्। faa- णादि विपयेयात्। wfasrata चंति। भाक्तभावात्। केव्याये saa! The seventeenth Karika is read
ayPraquyara fanufefaqaarefysrara | पदषाऽस्ति भाक्कभावात् केवलया प्रत्ते ||
There is nothing to choose between संदह त and सङ्गत, “ what is com- bined” and “combination.” Aniruddha has प्छ तेः. Vijnéna exchanges it for षरटत्तख
II., 18, further, is half a couplet :
साल््िकमेकाद् भकं प्रवतेते AGHA दङ्कारात्।
The twenty-fifth Kariké differs only in exhibiting साच्िक tatewa: ; the sense remaining unaffected.
II., 31, once more, is metrical, and is the same as the last half of the twenty-ninth Karika :
सामान्यकरण्टत्तिः प्राणाद्या वायवः TE!
111. 48, 49, 50, 47, are as follows: ऊध्वं सच्विशाला। तमाविशालां मूलतः। मध्ये रजाविश्ला। आब्रह्मस्तम्नपयेन्तं ama efecifeaarq) And the fifty-fourth Kdrikd is
उष्वं सच्विश्लस्तमाविशलख मलतः सगेः | मध्ये रजावि शालो ब्रह्मा दि स्तम्नप यन्तः ||
Snatches of verse, and now and then whole verses, checquer, in- dependently of design, the prose of Sanskrit writers, as of writers in most languages. But it should be borne in mind, that the Sankhya- pravachana is of very limited compass, and that the arya 18 & measure of no little complexity. Should it be argued, with respect to the
13
By the prevailing suffrage of mythology, Kapila* of the
immetricalness of the tenth Karika, that Is'warakrishua there con- sented to a prosodial blemish, rather than deviate from the very words of an aphorism, one may answer, that, in several places where we can trace nothing like intimate dependence, on his part, upon the aphorisms which have come down to us, he is chargeable with the same sort of laxity. Instances may be seen in the fourth, seventh, ninth, twenty-sixth, and seventieth of the Karikas.
Of the genuineness of the three final Kdrikds I have grave doubt. From the seventy-second we gather nothing more than that the treatise attributed to [s’warakrishna summarizes, with some reserva- tions, the substance of the sixty Sankhya fundamentals. It seems not altogether unlikely, that Is/warakrishna may have digested into stanzas the material parts of an earlier set of Sankhya aphorisms ; that those aphorisms were long neglected, and parts of them got lost; and that the person who integrated the remnants, to make up the Sdnkhya- pravachana, availed himself of fs warakrishna’s performance.
* Professor Wilson, reviewing Colebrooke, once wrote as follows : “The founder of the Sankhya philosophy is named Kapila; who, as one of the seven great Rishis, is one of the sons of Brahma. There are other accounts of his origin ; but none more satisfactory.” Quar- terly Oriental Magazine, for Sept., 1825; p. 12. That Kapila is any where styled “one of the seven great Rishis” needs confirmation, for all the emphasis with which other accounts of him are thus discredited. Nothing of this is to be found in the Zranslation of the Vishnu-purana. Colebrooke—Jiscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 229, refers, mistakingly, to Gaudapada, in proof of Kapila’s being ranked as ¢ one of the seven great Rishis.”” The citation runs thus :
रते ब्रह्मणः TA GH TM ATTA: |
“These seven sons of Brahma were called great Rishis.”
The more ordinary mdnasa, or mind-born, sons of Brahma vary, as specified in different Puranas, from seven to more than twice that number; “but,” as Professor Wilson remarks, “the variations are of the nature of additions made to an apparently original enumer- ation of but seven, whose names generally recur.” Translation of the Vishnu-purana, p. 48, note 2. One such group is made up of Marichi, Atri, Angiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu and Vasishtha: the
14
Sankhya is held to have been a son of the god Brahma:
well-known “seven Rishis.” , Mahdbhérata, XII., 7570 and 18075. This list 18 moditied, in the same book of the Mahdabhdrata, 7534-5, by the substitution of Daksha for Vasishtha; and, at 13040, by the addition of Manu: the tale being thus increased to eight. But, however amplified by Pauranika liberality, it is not this catalogue of Brahma’s mind-born progeny that is to furnish us with Kapila.
Incidentally, the manas, or mind, is not located, in Hindu opinion, in the brain, as Mr. J. C. Thomson imagines. See his Bhagavad- gita, p. 68, notes 4 and 7. It is thought to be in the Aridaya, or breast ;—not heart, as Aridaya is commonly rendered.
Another company of kindred emanation likewise comprehends seven individuals. In the Mahdbharata, XII., 13078-9, they are said to be Sana, Sanatsujaéta, Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanatkumiara, Kapila, and Sanatana. In the passage quoted, in all probability from some Purana, near the commencement of Gaudapada’s commentary on the Sankhya-kdérika, Kapila still appears, but as introducing several accredited Sankhya doctors, to the extrusion of as many of his former associates ; the roll now standing thus: Sanaka, Sananda, 88118188, Asuri, Kapila, Vodhu, and Panchasikha. In the ¢arpana, or satis- faction-service, of at least one school of the Veda, that of Madhyan- dina, the same persons are invoked, and in the same order, except that the name of Asuri and Kapila are transposed. See Colebrooke’s Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 144. In the Padma-purana, latter section, Vishnu-vytiha-bheda-varnana chapter, 14, 15, among other changes, Kapila himself makes way for another; the set now con- sisting of Sanaka, Sananda, Sanatana, Sanatkumara, Jata, Vodhu, and Panchas‘ikha. See the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XI., p. 99. The Kérma-purdna, prior section, VII., 18, 19, with additional alterations, reduces the seven to five: Sanaka, Sanatana, Sanandana, Riri, (?) and Sanatkuméra; whom it characterizes as great Yogins. The first three and the last of these five hold, apparently, peculiar eminence in the family of Brahma; since from them, ac- cording to Gaudapéda on the forty-third Karzkd, originated, severally, virtue, knowledge, dispassion, and irresistible will. The names of these four occur, also, unaccompanied, as if they were to be regarded as representative, at III, 12, 8, of the Bhdgavata-purdna.
15
but he is likewise described, on several occasions, as an
~~~ ~~~ ~ ब~ ~~~ ~~ - - ~ ~~ ~~~ ~
Sananda and Sanandana are, doubtless, prosodial varieties of the same name; and Jata seems to be put, by metrical licence, for Sanatsujata.
In the Kuérma-purdna, latter section, V., 18, parts of the two classes of Brahma’s mental sons, several new members being added to the first, are named together, thus: Sanatkuméra, Sanaka, Bhrigu, Sandtana, Sanandana, Rudra, Angiras, Vamadeva, S/ukra, Atri, Kapila, and Marichi. But it is worthy of observation, that this Purdna plainly distinguishes the second class, as to origin, from the first, What is evidently intended for the first class is detailed, at VII,, 35—39, of the former section, as made up of Daksha, Marichi, Angiras, Bhrigu, Atri, Dharma, Sankalpa, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, and Va- sishtha; and the generation of these persons, as there given, is very different from what it is in any of the accounts rendered by Professor Wilson. See Translation of the Vishnu-purdna, p. 50, note. For instance, the first and the last four are derived, respectively, from Brahma’s prana, uddna, vydna, apdna, and samdna. See, for these terms, Colebrooke’s JA/iscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., pp. 356 and 374; also the Oxford Sankhya-karikd, p. 108. At X., 84, of the Kirma- purana, latter section, the whole eleven are denominated Brahmas ; and Brahma is stated to have created them by his power as a Yogin. See, also, Ziranslation of the Vishnu-purana, p. 49.
Further particulars of interest occur at X., 122—125, of the latter section of the Aérma-purana. Sanatkumara is there said to have instructed Samvarta; and he, Satyavrata: Sanandana, Pulaha; and he, Gautama: Angiras, Bharadwaja: Kapila, Jaigishavya and Pan- chas'‘ikha: Sanaka, Pards/ara; and he, Valmiki. This Purana is stated, at its conclusion, to have been transmitted from Brahma as follows: Brahm& communicated it to Sanaka and Sanatkumara; Sanaka, to Devala; Devala, to Panchas‘ikha; and Sanatkumara, to Vyasa.
There is, clearly, no countenance, in the analogy of the Hindu hagiogony, for the else plausible surmise, that a complete history of the manasa sons of Brahma might, if recoverable, possibly go to show, that the epithet by which they are known may originally have borne a less mysterious signification than that of mind-born. Its intention
16
incorporation of Vishnu.* Another account makes him to have been a son of Kardama;r7 still another gives him Dharma
could never have been to discriminate the literate portion of the Brahmanidae from their less learned kinsmen
As the mind, in the Puranas, is constituted of matter, mental offspring are not to be looked upon as ethereal. Such, at least, is the Hindu conclusion. :
* Mahabharata, III., 1896 and 8880. Rdamdyana, I., 41, 2—4 and 25. At I., 41, 2—4, Kapila’s destruction of the sons of Sagara is predicted. Padma-purdna, latter section, Vishnu-vytha-bheda- varnana chapter. Translation of the Vishnu-purdna, p. 877, Bhaga- wvata-purana, I., 8, 11; where Kapila stands fifth of the twenty-four incarnations of Vishnu. See, also, at p. 5 supra, the verse from the Mahabharata, XIII., 7006, with S’ankara Acharya’s commentary. See, further, in a coming note on Asuri, a passage from Vyadsa’s Pdatanjala-bhashya, The commentators on that work, as Vachaspati Mis’ra, Vijnana Bhikshu, and Nagoji Bhatta, understand the word ddi-vidwan, or “ primeval sage,’ to mean, there, Vishnu.
Schlegel, in his note on the Rdmdayana, I., 41, 3, remarks: ^^ De hoc Vishnis cognomine et munere non habeo quod expromam. Vix opus est monere plane hince alienum est Kapilum, philosophiae ratio- nalis (sdnkhya) auctorem; quamvis et hune discipuli nimis ambitiosi numinis plenum, imo ipsum in mortali corpore praesentem Vishnum fuisse iactaverint. Quam opinionem innuit auctor Bhagavad-gitae, Lect. X., 26.”
It must now appear, that the notion which Schlegel dismisses so peremptorily, is much better fortified by old report than he apprehended
+t Bhégavata-puréna, II., 7, 8 ; and III., 33,1. The birth of the sage, and of his nine sisters, is there said to have taken place in the house of Kardama, the husband of Devahuti, who is called Kapila’s mother. Kapila’s father, according to this account, must be Kar- dama ; as there is no hint of anything like a miraculous conception. Kapila, as thus described, is, nevertheless, regarded, by some, as having afterwards become an incarnation of Vishnu. Kardama, if not one of Brahma’s mind-born sons, was, at all events, a prajdpate, or “patriarch.” Zranslation of the Vishnu-purdna, p. 50, note.
17
and {1111858 for parents ;* and, again, he is identified with one
Elsewhere, however, it is denied, that Kapila was son of Kardama by Devahuti; another and later wife of the patriarch, of unspecified name, being held for the sage’s mother. As for Devahtti, she is represented as the daughter, not of Manu Sy4yambhuva,—as is ordi- narily declared,—but of Trinabindu. The original of these statements. is expressed in the following words :
धमेदत्त Vary | aay विजयखव विष्णेद्धाःस्थामया zat! fara ताभ्यां परा चौण यस्मात् तद्रपधारिणा।९। गणावचतुः। दणवबिन्दास्त कन्यायां sax परा fea कदमस्यतु CYA पुजाद्धा सम्बभूवतुः! Fil Sel जयः कनिष्ठाऽभद् विजयेत नामतः। च्यन्यस्यामभवत् Tal कपिला सागधमवित्।। २॥ Padma-purdna, Pétdéla-khanda, 97th chapter.
In Colebrooke’s Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 280, Devaduti is, of course, a misprint for Devahuti. Yet Professor Lassen has adopted the former reading. Indische Alterthumskunde, Vol. I., p. 882.
* According to the Vamana-purana, LVI., 69—73, Dharma and Hins4 had eight sons: Sanatkumara, Sanatana, Sanaka, Sanandana, Kapila, Vodhu, Asuri, and Panchas’ikha. The first four were versed in the Yoga; and the rest were proficients in the Sdnkhya. The passage, as I have seen it, is evidently very corrupt. I give it with- out any suggestions of amendment
Hag भाया डिसाख्या तस्यां पचचतुषटयम्। Vesta मनिण्ादुल यागश्ास्लविचारकम्॥ Ss: सनत्कुमाराऽभट् ददितौयख सनातनः। Sala: सनका नाम चतुथख सनन्दनः |) साद्धुम वत्तारमपरं कपिलं वादढमारसुरिम्॥ Cal qeing ag यागयन्तं तपानिधिम्॥ तांस्तद्यागं नत द्द्यज्यायांसाऽपि कनौयसाम् | मानमद्य Aa केपिलादौीनपासतः॥ नत्कुमार खाऽभ्यत्य ब्रह्माणं कमलेद्धवम्।
18
of the Agnis, or Fires.* Lastly, it is affirmed, that there have been two Kapilas: the first, an embodiment of Vishnu; the
अगच्छद् यागविज्ञानं तम् वाच प्रजापतिः। ज्ञानयागं न ते द् दच्यायांसाऽपि कनौयसाम्।। The first three of these stanzas are adduced in the S/abda-kalpa- druma, pp. 1831—82; where they are erroneously said to be from the fiftieth chapter of the Vaémana-purana.
# श्रगक्ञछष्णगतिदे वा ये बिभति डताणशनम्। अकल्मषः SHUN कते। क्राधायितस्त् सः कपिलं परमषि च यं प्रायेतयः सद्ा । wig: स कपिला नाम साहूवृयोगप्रवतेकः | Mahabharata, 111. 14196—7.
The last line of these verses is cited by Vijnaéna, near the conclu- sion of his Sankhya-pravachana-bhashya. But he rejects, with indig- nation, the idea, that Kapila is therein identified with Fire. It is simply meant, he says, that Kapila was endowed with the potency of fire ; and he supports his interpretation by the aid of analogy, with some ingenuity. Of there having been two Kapilas, he will hear nothing,
In his version of it, the line he quotes is so phrased, as to give Kapila the authorship of the Sankhya only, and not of the Yoga likewise :
Sig: स कपिला नाम साद्ुश्सनप्रवतेकः।
_ Professor Wilson, writing of this text, of whose respectable origin
he was uncertified, pronounces, touching the identity it authenticates, that “there does not appear to be any good authority for the notion,” and adds, immediately afterwards: “ Kapila is a synonyme of fire; as it is of a brown, dusky, or tawny, colour; and this may have given rise to the idea of Agni and the sage being the same.” Oxford Sankhya-karika, p. 188. See, also, Colebrooke’s Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 280. But it seems just as likely, that the notion owed its origin to the fabled combustion, by Kapila, of the sons of Sagara. Mahdbharata, I11., 8881. Also see the Asiatic Researches, Vol. III., pp. 349, 850 ; and Vol. VI., p. 478.
For Colonel Wilford’s wild speculations, in which he makes Kapila one with Enoch, vide zbid., Vol. VI., pp. 473-4.
19 other, the igneous principle in corporeal disguise.* It must
* See the reference to the Sarvopakarint, in the foot-note at p. 8, supra.
S/ankara Acharya, in the S'drtraka-mimansd-bhdshya, 1., 2, 1, also declares for two Kapilas. Implicitly following the Rdmdyana, he considers the Sagaracide Kapila to be an incarnation of Vasudeva, or Vishnu ; but he denies the origination, or revival, by him, of the Sankhya philosophy. It is in another Kapila, on whom he forbears to expatiate, that he recognizes its inventor. The Bhdgavata-purdna, IX., 8, 13, insists, that this Kapila could not, with his benevolent nature, have slain the Sagarida intentionally. Yet it makes no doubt, that they were destroyed by fire issuing from the body of the incensed ascetic, independently of his volition.
S’ankara Acharya, commenting on the word Kapila in the S’we- tas’ watara-upanishad, V., 2, proposes two interpretations of it. By one of them it is violently made to denote, as a lame synonyme, Hiranyagarbha. Otherwise, since primogeniture among created beings is found averred of both Kapila and Hiranyagarbha, they are, to save scriptural consistency, concluded to be one and the same. On the other interpretation, the person named in the Upanishad is Kapila of the Sankhya, a partial incarnation of Vishnu. For his character as such, some unnamed Purana is adduced. S’ankara adds, that the other Kapila is celebrated in the Mundaka-upanishad. This statement is, however, made inadvertently ; since no mention of him occurs there. S’ankara probably quoted, after the ordinary reckless Indian fashion, from memory. Dr. Roer has somewhat mis- represented S’ankara, in making him cite suicidally the Purana above referred to. S’ankara avowedly cites it, not to corroborate the first identification of Kapila, but to elucidate the second. Neither, in that quotation, is Kapila, “ to praise him,” “identified with Hiranya- garbha.” See the Bibliotheca Indica, Vol. XV., p. 62.
It may be observed, generally, that, in conformity with Hindu usage, none but the predilective object of one’s idolatry is glorified as a plenary incarnation.
Kapila, in the Mahddeva-sahasra-nama-stotra, Mahabharata, XIII, 1211, is an epithet of Siva, and expresses, as indicated by the con- text, “tawny.”
20
be acknowledged, in sum, that we know nothing satisfactory concerning our old-world sage; the meagre notices of him that are producible being hopelessly involved in uncertainty, and inextricably embarrassed by fable. Yet it may be credited, with but little hesitation, that he was something more substantial than a myth ;* and there is good ground for our receiving, as an historical fact, his alleged connexion with the Sankhya.
In an inscription translated by Colebrooke, there occurs the word kapila, which, he observes, “ probably is fire, personified as a female goddess.” [sic] Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 300, last line; and ए. 804, foot-note No. 21. 10 remains to be shown, that the word ever means fire. In that place it bears, undoubtedly, the sense of “dun cow;” from cireumambulating which sort of creature great merit. 13 supposed to be acquired. “‘A red one:’ kapilé. When applied to a cow, this term signifies one of the colour of lac-dye, with black tail and white hoofs.” Colebrooke’s Two Treatises on the Hindu Law of Inheritance, p. 181, second foot-note. For kapild, in this acceptation, see the Mahdabhdrata, XIII., 2953, 3535, 3596, 8703-4, 3744, 3764; and, on the subject of circumambulating a cow, see the same poem, XIII., 3436 and 3794.
* Colebrooke comes to a different conclusion. “ It may be ques- tioned,” he says, “whether Kapila be not altogether a mythological personage, to whom the true author of the doctrine, whoever he was. thought fit to ascribe it.” Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 231. But the Mahdbharata, despite its plentiful alloy of fiction, sufficiently attests, it should seem, the reality of the sage; and the Sénkhya- pravachana and Tattwa-samasa may be pseudonymous, without vacat- ing the existence of Kapila, or his character of Sénkhya proto- philosopher.
There is, I doubt not, much new matter about Kapila in Dr. Muir’s Sanskrit Texts ; but, to my regret, the work is not, at this moment, accessible to me.
In the Padma-purdna, latter section, Gauri-vivaha-varnana sub- division of the Kumdra-sambhava chapter, Kapila is said to have dwelt in the village of Indraprastha, Further particulars regarding this personage can, doubtless, be obtained, if the Kapila-upapurdna,
21
Among the ancients whose names are found in association with that of Kapila, are Asuri, Panchas‘ikha, Sandtana, and Sanandana. ‘These five persons, with others, we have mytho- historical authority for classmg as brothers. But accounts differ on the subject of their parentage. An option is allowed be- tween regarding them as mind-born sons of Brahmaé,* and as offspring, after the natural course, of Dharma and 1111188.
Asuri, it is stated, had for teacher Kapila himself.t That he was an author, we have the evidence, such as it is, of a single couplet.§
which is named in the Kérma-purdna, and elsewhere, be still extant. For the Kapila-sanhitd, a colloquy concerned with the sacred loca- lities of Orissa, see Dr. Aufrecht’s Catalogus Cod. Manuscript. Sanscrit, &९., p. 77. At p. 26 of the Sanskrit Catalogue of the library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, occurs the name of Kédpila- smriti, or Legal Institute of Kapila. A work on naval astrology, attributed to Kapila, has been found in the Peninsula. Mackenzie Collection, Vol. I., p. 262. A treatise on the Yoga, called Kapila- 4८4, has also fallen in my way. It professes to be extracted from the Padma-purdna.
* See the note at p. 14, supra.
† See the note at p. 17, supra.
{ Bhdgavata-purdna, I., 3,11. Panchas/ikha apud Vyasa: Pétan- jala-bhdshya, 1. 25: खाद विद्धान् निमाणचित्तमधष्ठिाय areure भगवान् परमषिरारसुरये जिज्ञासमानाय तन्त्रं ्रावाच। The commentators are unanimous in understanding, by paramarshi, or “great Rishi,” Kapila.
‘Colebrooke—WMiscellaneous Essays, Vol. 1., p. 231,—speaks of this passage as being one of Panchas’ikha’s sééras. But it is not so discriminated by Vy4sa, or by Vy4sa’s commentators; though they name Panchas/ikha as its author. Colebrooke, it is clear, did not suspect, that reference was anywhere made to more than one work of Panchas’ikha.
§ विविक्तं दक्रपरिणता बुधा WATS HATE | प्रतिबिम्बोाद्यः खच्छे यथा चन््रमसोऽम्भसि॥
This I found in Charitrasinha Gani’s 8010119 on the Shad-dars ana- samuchchaya.
22
Panchas ikha is called a disciple of Asuri;* but he is also said to have been instructed by Kapila.t He is known, by scanty fragments, as an aphorist.t Of a second work of his we have indications,§$ and, it may be, of a third. It is manifest,
* Mahdbhdrata, XII., 7890, 7895.
ft And to have been fellow-student of Jaigishavya. Kérma-purdna Prior Section, IX., 119. See, further, the reference to the Kérma- purana in the note at p. 15, supra.
If Colebrooke—Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. 1., pp. 229, 230,—meant to intimate, that, in Gaudapdda’s commentary, Panchas’ikha is spoken ` of as Kapila’s disciple, either directly, or through Asuri, he committed an oversight. That Asuri was Panchasikha’s preceptor is declared in the seventieth Kérikd ; but on that couplet Gaudapéda makes no remark.
{ A single one of his aphorisms is given, as such, in Vy4sa’s Pétanjala-bhishya, 1. 4: एकमेव दशनं eifata द शेनम्। Kshemé- nanda, in his notes on the Yattwa-samdsa, twice quotes this as a sitra ; and Vachaspati Mis’ra, Vijndna Bhikshu, and Nagoji Bhatta, consent in assigning it to Panchas’ikha.
In Vydsa’s Pédtanjala-bhashya we find, at Il, 13: खल्पः सङ्करः सपरिद्दारः सप्रत्यवमषेः कुशलस्य नाऽपकषायाऽसललम्। कस्मात् कुशलं fe a बह्- न्यद स्ति यचाऽयमावापगतः खभैऽप्यपकषेमल्पे करिष्यति। Of this passage,— which is uncharacterized, by Vyasa, except as being by Panchas’i- kha,—the Sdnkhya-tattwa-kaumudi cites the words खल्पः सङ्करः सपरि- हारः; सप्रत्यवमषंः | So does Narayana Tirtha, in his Bhakti-chandrikd. Swapnes/wara, in his annotations on the Aawmudt, still dissecting, says, that the first three of these words form one aphorism, and the remaining word, another.
So much for Panchas‘ikha’s siétras; and it may be questioned whether any more samples of them are forthcoming, notwithstanding Colebrooke’s assertion, that they “are frequently cited, and by modern authors on the Sdnkhya.” Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. L., 2. 233.
§ This work is metrical; unless, indeed, the longer extracts, to be given after the ensuing couplets, belong, with one or more of them, to a treatise mixed of prose and verse.
28
that he wrote on the Sankhya; and it is not impossible, that
STIS माचा ज्ञानेन द्वितोया रागसङ्खुयात्। SRAM SAIS Wd माल त्त एम् |
This couplet is quoted, by Vijnéna Bhikshu, in his Brahma-sutra-
riju-vyakhyd, with the following introduction: चिविधं माकं MAUTSSS तच्लसमासाष्यभाष्ये पच्चशिखाचायेः। This is the best voucher we have for the opinion, that Panchas’ikha commented on the Tattwa-samasa, of which the words चिवि माः do really constitute a topic. This couplet is again quoted, partially, by Vijnana, in his Yoga-varttvka, as well as in Bhavdganes’a’s Yogdnus' dsana-sitra-vritti ; and in full, by Kshemfénanda on the Zattwa-samdsa, in the Sankhya-krama- dipikd, and by Bhavaganes’a in the Tuttwa-ydthdrthya-dipana. Its various readings, and those of the stanzas following, are not of sufficient importance to call for particulariZation.
Bhavaganes’a, in his Yogdnus'dsana-sttra-vritti, refers the stanza just given, directly to Panchas’ikha; but, in his Zattwa-yatharthya- dtpana, he introduces those verses, and the three couplets subjoined, by expressions importing, that they were borrowed, not from, but through, Panchas/ikha.
पञ्चविंशति तज्ञाः यचकुचाऽऽखमे fara: | जट aS भिखो वाऽपि मुच्यते नाऽच THE: I
~ ~ =z ~ प्रारुतेन तु बन्धेन तथा बकारिकंण च। दक्विणाभिस्ततौयेन बद्धोऽयं तु निगद्यते |
तच्लानि या वेद्यते यथावद् गुणखरूपाण्यधिदे वतं च । विमुक्घपा्मा गतदाषमङ्खा गणास्तु YF न WW: स युच्यते A Now, these three couplets, and that preceding them, the first and the third as acknowledged quotations, are also found in the Sankhya-krama-dipika. The last two are cited both there and in the Sankhya-sttra-vivarana. The first has been spoken of above; and the second is in Ksheménanda on the Zattwa-samdsa, in Charitrasinha Gani on the Shad-dars’ana-samuchchaya, and is twice given in Gauda- pada on the Sdnkhya-karikéd. It is, besides, observable, that Bhavé- ganes'a does not quote a syllable as derived through Panchas‘ikha, that does not occur in the Sankhya-krama-dipiké. There is, accord- ingly, a presumption, that Bhavaganes’a took the passages from that work, and under the impression, that it was by Panchas‘ikha; and
24
he was likewise an expounder of the dogmas of Patanjali.
this suspicion is strengthened by the second exordial stanza of the Tattwa-yatharthya-dipana, where its author clearly enough claims to have consulted Panchas’ikha on the Tattwa-samasa :
समासरूचमालम्व्य याष्यां पञ्चशिखस्य च ।
भावागरेशः कुरते त्याथाय्येदोपनम् ॥
The attribution to Panchas‘ikha of the Sdnkhya-krama-dipikd, if ever actually maintained, would at once be invalidated by indicating the fact, that mention of Panchas’ikha is made, in the work itself, supposed free from interpolation; and in such a manner, namely, with the title of acharya, as to differentiate him from its author.
The passages extracted below have, in every case, the guarantee of good authority for their being by Panchas‘ikha, They are given, in the first instance, by Vyasa, in his Patanjala-bhashya, anonymously : but three of Vyasa’s commentators, Vachaspati Mis’ra, in the Pdtan- jala-siitra-bhdashya-vydkhyd, Vijnana Bhikshu, in the Yoga-varttika, and Nagoji Bhatta, in the Pdtanjala-sitra-vritti-bhashya-chchhdya-vyakhya, testify, one, or all, to their authorship. As for the passage at II., 22, Vachaspati merely says, that it is by an agdmin, or authoritative sage: the two other scholiasts declare it to be by Panchas’ikha.
The first of the annexed passages is quoted and elucidated by Kshemananda, in the Nava-yoga-kallola. A few words from the pas- sage at II., 20, are brought forward in the concluding chapter of the Sarva-dars'ana-sangraha
तमणमाचमात्मानमनविद्यास्मौत्येवं तावत् सम्प्रजानौत इत्येषा दयौ विशाका विषयवत्यक्िता माचा च प्रहत्तिच्यातिसख्मतोौत्यते यया यागिनञचित्तं स्थितिपदं लभत । I., 36
व्यक्तमव्यक्तं वा सत््लमात्मलेनाऽभिप्रतीत्य तस्य सम्पद् मन नन्द्त्यात्मसम्यद् मन्वान स्तस्य व्यापटर्मनशाचत्यात्मयापदं मन्वानः स सवाप्रतिबद्ध इत्येषा चतुष्पदा भवन्यविद्या मूलमस्य क्ल ्सन्तानस्य कमाश्यस्य च saga) I
बद्धितः परं परषमाकारश्यौरविद्यादिभिविभक्तमपश्यन् Hara तचाऽऽ्मबद्िं मादन । {1.6
तत्रंयेगदेतुविवजेनात् स्याद यमात्यन्तिको `दुःखप्रतीकरारः। कस्मात् । -दुःखद्ेताः परि दायस्य प्रतोकारद शेनात्। तद् यथा पाद तलस्य भेद्यता कण्टकस्य भेत्तलं परि- हारः कण्टकस्य पाद्नधिष्ठानं पादचाणव्यवड्ितन वाऽधिष्ठानम् । एतत् चयं या वेद् लाकं स तच प्रतीकारमारभमाणा भेदजं दुःखं नाऽऽप्नाति। कस्मात्। चिलोष- लबििसामयण्यात्। I, 17.
29
98181818 is reported to have busied himself with the Yoga ; but none of his writings seem to have survived to the present day.*
Sanandana, at least in the acknowledgment of tradition, was a philosopher of high repute. Of his literary remains, if he left any, nothing, it is believed, has reached us.t
Except at sheer random, we can scarcely estimate the dur- ation that divided Ys'warakrishna from Kapila. The utmost that can, with any safety, be said of his time is, that he flou- rished before the ninth century. In the very abruptness with which he begins his compendium,{ the manner of a compar-
चयं तु खल चिष गणष कटटेष्वकतरि च पर्ष तुखातुखजातोय चतुथ afemar- साचिष्यपनौयमानात् सवेभावानपपनत्राननपणश्यन् ट शनमन्यत् Wea! II., 18
परिणामिनो fe भेक्नाशक्तिरप्रतिसङ्कमा च परिणामिन्यथ प्रतिसखङ्गान्तेव तदु त्तिमनुपतति। तस्याञ्च प्राप्रचतन्यापग्रदरूपाया बद्धिहत्तेरनुकारमाचतया बुद्धि त्यविशिष्टा fe ज्ञानटत्निरिन्यष््यायते। 11. 20
धमिणामनादिसंयागाद् धमेमाचाणामप्यनादिः gam! IT, 22
रूपातिश्या वत्त्यतिश्याख्च que विरध्यन्त सामान्यानि लतिशयेः TE प्रव- तन्त। तस्माद् सङ्करः। यथा रागस्यव क्रचत् vaaraic cia a तद्ानोमन्यबा भावः किन्त केवलं सामान्येन समन्वागत Cafe at तज AS भावसल्रथा लक्षणस्य, 111. 18
त्यद् शच वशानामेकच्रुतिलयं सर्वेषां भवति | IIL, 40.
Little can safely be conjectured with regard to the character of the work, or works, from which these sentences were selected by Vyasa. They may be text; and they may be commentary. Probably they are Sankhya; but, possibly, they pertain to the Yoga.
* Raéyamukuta, in his Pada-chandrikd, cites from the Yoga-s'ata- kakhyina of a Sandtana; and Sundara Deva, in his Hatha-sanketa- chandrika, a Yoga treatise, from the Sandtana-siddhdnta.
t He is one of the two authorities referred to by name in the Sankhya-pravachana ; where he enjoys, uniquely, the honour of being called an dchadrya. It may be, that this notice of him is in an aphorism retained from the original Sdénkhya-stira.
{ Its opening stanza is translated as follows by Colebrooke, Pro- fessor Lassen, Dr. C. J. H. Windischmann, and M. Saint-Hilaire:
26
atively early age is plainly perceptible: he invokes no divinity,
“The inquiry is into the means of precluding the three sorts of pain: for pain is embarrassment. Nor is the inquiry superfluous, because obvious means of alleviation exist; for absolute and final relief is not thereby accomplished.”
< {ए tergeminorum dolorum impetu (oritur) desiderium cognoscendae rationis qua 11 depellantur. Quod (cognoscendi desiderium) licet in visibilibus rebus infructuose versetur, non est (infructuosum) propter absentiam absoluti et omni aevo superstitis (remedii).”
“"Wegen des Zudrangs der Dreiheit von Leiden entsteht das Bestreben nach Erkenntniss eines diese (Leiden) verdrangenden (radicalen) Heilmittels. Sagt man: Dieses Bestreben sey unniiz, da ein sichtbares (Mittel der Abwehr) vorhanden sey, so ist dies falsch wegen des Niclitseyns eines vollstandigen und dauernden (Mittels).”
“La philosophie consiste 4 guérir les trois especes de douleurs. Si 1707 prétend qu’il existe des moyens matériels de les guérir, et que, par conséquent, la philosophie est inutile, on se trompe; car il n’est = pas un seul de ces moyens qui soit absolu ni définitif.”
If the intended sense, in the first line, were “for pain is embar- rassment,”’ the formation of the sentence being considered, the Sanskrit should be -दुःखचयस्याऽभिघात लात्. Dr. Windischmann—Die Philoso- phie im Fortgang der Weltgeschichte, pp. 1812, 1813,—concurs with Professor Lassen on the point here controverted, but afterwards copies Colebrooke almost literally. Vachaspati Mis’ra explains the beginning of the couplet to concern “‘the disadvantageous connexion of the intelligent power, 07 soul, with threefold pain resident in the internal organ:” दुःखचयेणाऽन्तःकरण्वतिना परतिक्रूलतया चेतनाशक्तरभिस- म्नन्धा ऽभिघातः | Professor Lassen’s “impetus” is not at all ^“ irreeon- cilable with the context,” as Professor Wilson has pronounced it to be. For the rest, I quite agree with the former in preferring V4- chaspati’s तदपघातके to तदभिघातके. The Kdriké will then, run thus :
टुःखचयाभिषाताज् fare तदपघातके Sal | EB साऽपाथा चेन् नेकान्तात्यन्तताऽभावात् ॥ |
I would render it: “ Because of the discomposure that comes from: threefold pain, there arises a desire to learn the means of doing away therewith effectually. If tt be objected, that, visible means to this end
27
and salutes no venerable preceptor, but enters at once upon his
being available, such desire is needless, I demur; for that these means do not, entirely and for ever, work immunity from discom- posure.”
Abhighdta signifies “impact,” “blow,” “shock,” “ agitation.” Apaghdta has the sense of “averting,” “debarring,” “ removal,” “elimination.” Drishta, “ visible,” is for “ worldly,” or “ physical.” Colebrooke puts “ obvious.”
The French interpretation of the preliminary Kérikd is hardly an inspiration of profound scholarship. Yet a critique of it may not be amiss. In the first place, the relation of identity is never, as there assumed, expressed, in Sanskrit, by the fifth case. More strangely still, in manifest ignorance of the manner in which more than one set of Hindu aphorisms commences, M. Saint-Hilaire understands jijnasé to denote “philosophy ;” herein silently adopting Professor Lassen’s inference, based on the consideration of its etymology : Gymnosophista, p. 18. But the mere “ambition to know” would be too vague and indeterminate, by far, for the highest aspiration of the Hindu. Phi- losophy, with him, is a concretion, a definite tattwa-jijndsda, or ^^ desire of apprehending first principles.” It may be mentioned, parenthe- tically, that Professor Wilson has misread Gaudapada,where he explains जिज्ञासा by the equivalent desiderative विविदिषा ; as this does not imply “by the wise,” which would be fafaeut,—or, rather, the plural ; if, in fact, such an adjective as fafaqe, though not abnormal, be ever used.
Another error, on the part of M. Saint-Hilaire, and equally impor- tant with the one just disposed of, consists in the anachronism of representing I’s’warakrishna as employing a style of phraseology which would reduce him to the last century, and even transport him to the fellowship of antichristian Parisians. With most people but Frenchmen, the contrast to revelation is reason alone. So it is with us; and the same is the case with the Brahmans, whose word for “reason” is yukti, never jijndsd. No more than the Vedanta itself is the Sankhya a school of naturalism. The Bauddhas, the Charvakas, and a few other classes of Indian religionists, openly and unreservedly disown the warrant of the Veda; but, on the other hand, as Colebrooke ८८
has most justly observed, the Sankhyas “ endeavour to reconcile their
26
undertaking, without ceremony or circumlocution. Who he was,
doctrine to the text of the Indian scripture, and refer to passages which they interpret as countenancing their opinions. The J/imdnsa, which professedly follows the Veda implicitly, is, therefore, applied in its controversy with these half-heretics, to the confutation of such misinterpretations. It refutes an erroneous construction, rather than a mistaken train of reasoning.” Like the rest of the six great systems, the Sankhya, it is true, imposes some share of its dogmas upon the Veda, and then claims to have extracted them from it: a course which has had its precise parallel in procedures connected with our own Holy Writ. Still, its free-handling is by no means overdone, if we judge by the Indian standard.
M. Saint-Hilaire, in the course of his remarks on the first Kartka, adduces the introductory sentence of those imputed to Kapila: “L’objet définitif de esprit de homme, c’est la cessation définitive de la triple douleur.” On this, and the two aphorisms which succeed it, he says: “La traduction de ces trois Sofitras de Kapila nous montre fort nettement quel a été le travail de l’auteur de la Kaérika. 1] n’a rien changé a la pensée primitive, et il l’a suivie pas a pas: seulement il l’a rendue plus précise; il l’a méme abrégée.”**** Ainsi, dés le premier pas, la 1९ 81118, comme les Sodtras, établit lobjet de la philosophie.” This is very gratuitous. Where, in the first three aphorisms, do we see anything about jijndsd, M. Saint-Hilaire’s hypothetical ^“ philosophie” ? The complete cessation of threefold pain is there enunciated to be the supreme purpose of the soul. On M. Saint-Hilaire’s theory, that I’s’warakrishna adheres undeviatingly to the intent of the aphorist, “la philosophie,” the contradistin- guished from revelation, must have been substituted, by him, for “objet définitif de l’esprit de ’ homme.”
Proceeding to the second Kdrika, we find the expression दष्टवद्ान- ataat, “the revealed mode is like the temporal one,” as Colebrooke has it. Yet all revelation is not here contemplated. The commen- १4078 are of opinion, and rightly, that only the Vaidika ritual is animadverted upon. What is inculcated is, that a man should not restrict himself to sacrifice and like observances, the promised requital whereof is confined to the inferior bliss of Elysium, and stops short of ensuring a period to the grand evil of existence, metempsychosis,
29
and where he dwelt, are, however, questions that must,it seems, for ever go unanswered. One writer, to be sure, styles him disciple of Panchas‘ikha ;* and another will have it, that he and Kaélidésa were the same person:} but these statements though worthy of record, would require strong confirmation before they could challenge acceptance.
Those works which the Hindus style non-voluntary,—among which sacrifice is comprehended,—are, indeed, said to be attended with sin: nevertheless, whatever the sin of performing them, there would be greater sin in abstaining from them. Being prescribed, they must be done; and the consequences must be endured, and duly atoned for. The Sankhya simply takes a flight beyond the legalistic Mi- mansa: and so does the Vedanta; no more than which does the Sankhya cut itself away from the Veda, or lay a ban upon the rites and ceremonies which it is thought to enjoin. In a word, the Sankhya would only dissuade from content with a lower grade of future happiness. M. Saint-Hilaire’s phrase of “reste de respect ” used of a Sankhya, proceeds, then, from mis- apprehension; and equally so does his remark on the first two Karikds: “ L'autorite de la raison n’a jamais été plus nettement affirmée ; sa suprématie n’a jamais été plus hautement proclamée.”
* Nardyana Tirtha, in the Zattwa-chandra, so describes him, and gives him the title of Muni.
+ Swapnes’wara says, in the Kaumudi-prabha : = BCH AAT काल्ि- दासेन Sat कारिकाः। These words are continuous with the extract given in a foot-note to p. 8, supra. The only MSS. of the Kawmudt- prabha that I have seen,—two in number,—are defective at the con- clusion, where Swapnes’wara may, perhaps, have enlarged on the traditional identity which he reports.
Kaviraja Yati, author of the Sdnkhya-tattwa-pradipa, calls Ys’ wara- krishna sénkhya-mula-kdara, or “ founder of the Sankhya.” This may have been intended as nothing more than a compliment. As such I have more than once heard the epithet applied, by the pandits, to the compiler of the Sankhya-karika.
Colebrooke, prior to the date of his elaborate and fruitful researches on Hindu philosophy, wrote as follows: ^ The text of the Sénkhya
our Vécriture sainte ]
30
The next writer that here calls for notice is one of foremost importance. Of all extant treatises on the system of Kapila, by much the most valuable are those of Vijnana Bhikshu. While he unfolds the doctrines of the Sfinkhya with a com- pleteness such as leaves little to be supplemented, he has the merit, in his capacity of expositor, of being as cautious as he is copious. If none of his countrymen have added to him, neither has any one of them ventured to arraign his accuracy,* still less, to disallow his ability.
philosophy, from which the sect of Buddha seems to have borrowed its doctrines, is not the work of Kapila himself, though vulgarly ascribed to him; but it purports to be composed by Is’warakrishna.” Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. 1., p. 103. Unquestionably, this sentence was penned while Colebrooke was as yet unacquainted with the s0- called aphorisms of Kapila; and it must have escaped his eye, when he was recommitting his essays to the press.
* M. Saint-Hilaire, indeed has found fault with him; but the reader shall see how misapprehensively.
First of all, I subjoin the twenty-fifth Karika, with Colebrooke’s translation, and the censurer’s :
साल्िकं रकाद कः प्रवतंते SHAT दङ्गारात्। भूतादेसतन्माचः स तामसस्तेजसादुभयम्।।
“From consciousness, affected by goodness, proceeds the good elevenfold set: from it, as a dark origin of being, come elementary particles : both issue from that principle affected by foulness.”
‘“‘T’ensemble des onze principes donés de bonté émane du moi quand il est modifié également par la bonté. Du moi considéré comme élément primitif viennent les éléments grossiers; il est alors obscur ; et cette double émanation n’a lieu que par influence de l’activité.”
Now, the expression “ origin of being” is, in this place, all but nugatory : and Professor Wilson’s assumption, that “ origin of beings” is intended, does not at all mend the matter; since “ beings,” in the only plausible sense of which the word is here susceptible, that of “ creatures,” or “ elemental creation,’—fifty-third Adrika,—are, out of the Puranas, produced from egoism only by the intermediate agency of the elementary particles.
31
His reputation as an author rests upon at least five works,
The mistake which Professor Wilson falls into, after his attempt to correct Colebrooke, can easily enough be accounted for. Gauda- pada says: भूतानामादिभ्तः | तमाबहलस्ेनाक्तः स तामस tla! This the Professor translates thus: “ The first element of the elements is darkness ; therefore it is usually called the dark.” But the word here rendered by “first element” would, as masculine, mean “ first being,” if it were a substantive; “first element” requiring, not adibhutah, but ddibhitam. Being, however, an adjective, it refers to bhitddi, the second factor of which it justifies etymologically. This reference should have been evident from the gender of wktah, sa, and tamasa ; and also from that of bahulas, which could never be an adverb. It is not propounded, that the elements originate from their like, from an element; and, while nothing is predicated of darkness, darkness is predicated as characterizing one of the varieties ofegoism. The passage cited above will, therefore, admit of no other translation than such as this: “ It, origin of the elements, is originant, viz., of the elements: ४ ४5 surcharged with darkness, and hence is. called dark.” ‘To bear out Professor Wilson’s English, the Sanskrit should have stood somewhat after this sort: भतानामाद्यभूतं तमः। तनं बडधोत्तं तत् तामसमिति।
In giving the passage from Gaudapada, I have supplied it with punctuation, and the only punctuation that it will abide.
In the Vishnu-purana, at I., 12, 53, the term bhdtddi “ generative of the elements,” epithetically employed in place of “ dark egoism,” is again rendered, by Professor Wilson, “ first element.” See his Translation, p. 93, line 12.
Professor Wilson, building on his oversight, indulges in the fol- lowing comment, which may now be cancelled: “ There is a remark- able expression in the Bhdshya, which presents a notion familiar to all ancient cosmogonies. Gaudapada says, ‘ the first of the elements was darkness.’ It is the first of the ‘elements,’ not the first of ‘things ;’ for it was preceded by unevolved nature, and intellect, and it is itself a modified form of individuality. It therefore harmonizes perfectly well with the prevailing ideas in the ancient world, of the state of things anterior to elementary or visible creation, when ‘chaos was, and night,’ and when
32
all of them concerned with philosophy. Their titles, in the
Nullus adhue mundo praebebat lumina Titan,
Nec nova crescendo reparabat cornua Phebe. In the influence of the quality of foulness, or passion,—for the word rajas has both senses,—may be suspected an affinity to the doctrine of an active principle, the moving mind, the eros, that set inert matter into motion, and produced created things.” Oxford Sankhya- harika, p. 94.
Professor Lassen, who was the first to translate the whole of [8८ wara- krishna’s treatise, has a right understanding of bhutadi. ^ Caterva undenum essentialis proficiscitur e sui sensu essentiali; rudimentalis ex (sui sensu) elementorum generatore; haec caliginosa est. Ex impetuoso (sul sensu) utralibet oritur creatio.” Twenty-fifth Adrika, in Gymnosophista, p. 58.
Professor Wilson’s remarks, incidentally bearing on the functions of bhutddi, at p. 164 of the Oxford Sankhya-karika, are unsubstantiated. The text on which those observations are founded is as follows: एवमभोतिकः सगौ fewest भावस WAS देवमानुषतेथग्योना TAT प्रधान. छतः षाडशसगेः | ¢ Thus, non-elemental creation, rudimental creation, conditional and elemental creation, in beings of divine, mortal, brutal, and (immovable) origin, are the sixteen sorts of creation effected by nature.” Instead of this, we should certainly read: “The non- elemental creation,—z. e., the rudimental creation and the conditional creation,—and the elemental creation, or the aggregate of beings of divine, mortal, and brutal, origin, are the sixteen sorts of creation proceeding mediately from nature.”
My MS. wants the word मूतसभा “elemental creation :'' but its insertion, as an equivalent of ‘the Ufa: समैः of the fifty-third Kiérika, is quite immaterial. Moreover, I have corrected a gram- matical inadvertence.
The elemental creation has fourteen divisions ; and the two branches of the non-elemental count, each, as unity. The sum of sixteen is thus completed. There is, then, no such successive correlation, in the above passage, as may have led the Professor to supply the word “immovable,” and which induced him to make the following com- ment: “ Apparently, each of the four classes of beings proceeds from
83
order, mainly, in which they were composed, here follow.
four modifications of nature; or, from the invisible principles, from the subtile rudiments, from the conditions or dispositions of intellect, and from the gross elements.”
The evolution of the Sankhya principles, as recited in the Vishnu- purdana, is strangely misrepresented by the translator. A single specimen will suffice.
भूतादिस् विकुवो एः ब्द तन्माचिकं ततः ॥ ससज शब्द तन्मानादाकाश्रं शब्द्ल त्ष णम् | HAS तथाऽऽकाशं भूतादिः स समादणेत् ॥ I., 2, 37-8.
“ Elementary Egotism then becoming productive, as the rudiment of sound, produced from it Ether, of which sound is the character- istic, investing it with its rudiment of sound.” P. 16.
The correct rendering is: “ The element-engendering egoism, being modified, then produced the rudiment of sound ; and, from the rudiment of sound, the ether, of which the characteristic is sound : and this ele- ment-engendering egoism, similarly to agents in processes before men- tioned, invested the ether, which consists of sound.”
Almost the entire page from which the passage above touched on is taken, is disfigured by the style of misapprehension just pointed out. In one place, in fact, in order to force the construction desired, the nominative singular vdyé—euphonically required for vdyuwh—is made accusative. Saintly liberties vastly more licentious than this are often taken, in the Puranas; but there is, in this instance, no temptation whatever to do violence to Panini.
To return to M. Saint-Hilaire. Part of his comment on the twenty-fifth Aarikd is thus expressed: “ Or Vidjnana comprend qu’il s’acit ici, non pas de l’ensemble des onze principes sortant du moi, mais du onziéme principe, c’est-a-dire, du manas, du cceur, qui, dans toutes les classifications, figure réguliérement, comme on 122 vu, au onzieme rang, parce qu'il est tout a la fois organe de perception et organe d’action. 1] faudrait donc faire ici un changement considéra- ble, et substituer le manas aux onze organes.
% * ओ # # ऋ *
“Si 101 adopte l’explication de Vidjnana, il faudrait traduire le vingt-cinquiéme sloka de la fagon suivante ; ‘ Le onziéme principe doué
34
I. The Brahna-sutra-riju-vydkhyd, sometimes called Vijndndm-
de bonté émane du moi quand le moi est modifié également par la bonté; du onziéme principe, considéré comme élément primitif, vien- nent les éléments grossiers. Ce onziéme principe est obscur ; et tous deux, ce principe et le moi, n’agissent que sous l’influence de l’activité.’
“Mais on peut remarquer que cette explication est en contradic- tion formelle avec les slokas qui précédent: d’abord, avec le sloka vingt-deuxieme, qui fait sortir directement du moi les seize principes, et qui fait sortir en particulier les éléments grossiers des éléments sub- 1113 ; et ensuite, avec le sloka vingt-quatrieme, qui reproduit la méme doctrine. I] faut ajouter que cette doctrine que nous retrouvons dans la Karika vient de Kapila lui-méme, comme le prouve le sotitra que nous avous cité. Nous devons donc nous en fier a l’explication de Gaoudapada plutot qu’a celle de Vidjnana. Dans le systeme sinkhya bien interprété, les cing éléments grossiers viennent des cing éléments subtils; et les cing éléments subtils, avec les onze organes, viennent du moi. Cen’est pas le manas, le ceur, qui produit les éléments grossiers, comme le croit Vidjnana Bhikshou; et ce qui doit nous ¢tonner encore davantage dans son erreur, c’est que, dans le soutra immédiatement précédent, Kapila dit expressément, lecture deuxiéme, soutra dix-septieme: ‘ L’effet du moi, c’est lensemble des onze organes et des cing éléments grossiers.’ Quelque délicat qu’il soit de se prononcer dans des questions de ce genre, nous croyons pouvoir affirmer que Vidjnana Bhikshou s’est trompé, et qu'il n’y a point ॐ tenir compte de son opinion.” Premier Mémoire, &c., pp. 100-102.
The critic, misled by Professor Wilson’s “ first element,” translates bhitadi by “ élément primitif.” He also substitutes “ éléments gros- siers” for éléments subtils,” as an evolution from his “ élément primi- tif;’ thus passing by the origin of the subtile elements, which, themselves directly derived from egoism, constitute the immediate source of the gross elements.
In order to adjust the twenty-fifth Ad@rikd after Vijndna’s conception of manas, M. Saint-Hilaire correctly premises, that this word, de- noted by “the eleventh,’ must be substituted, in the couplet, for “eleven.” But, professing to effect this substitution, while he once puts manas therefor, he puts it three times for “egoism.” He also puts
89
rita ; a commentary on the Vedanta Aphorisms of 3 दता 8118.
egoism for “ subtile elements,” or, rather, ^^ gross elements :” for he foists this blunder of his own, as well as his borrowed “ primitive element,” on the injured commentator. Vijnéna was not the man to perpetrate such a solecism as the deducing any of the elements from mind. He expands the text of the Sdénkhya-pravachana, I1., 17, in these words: “The eleven organs, and the five subtile elements, Zo- wit, sound, &c., are the products of egoism :” एकादश्न्द्रियणि weaite- पञ्चतन्माच ASSHITY कायंमित्यथे :। How could this have escaped the critic’s eye ? |
But Vijndna has clearly enough set forth his view of the twenty- fifth Karika ; as M. Saint-Hilaire would have seen, had he only master- ed, even with the aid of Professor Wilson,—a little closely scrutinized, —the scholiast’s understanding of the eighteenth Aphorism of the second Book. After alleging manas to mean the eleventh organ, Vijndna explains “ both” to refer to the intellectual organs and the organs of action: TATSMIAL ULUAHISMA ममः षोडशत्मगणमध्ये स्व कम्। VAAL AHA BMAP जायत Cys! Bag राजसाद- राद द्शन्द्रियाणि तामसादङ्गाराच च तन्माचाणौत्यवगन्तव्यम्। * * * * * उभयं wiawa fsa! The Kérikd will, then, run thus: “The ele- venth organ, consisting of goodness, originates from modified egoism. From egoism, as the source of the elements, proceed the elementary particles ; and this variety of egoism is imbued with darkness. From ९002570 affected by activity, arise both the intellectual organs and the organs of action.”
Vijnana is, therefore, peculiar, as compared with some others, in deriving from pure egoism buta single educt, mind, instead of eleven, viz., mind and the ten organs of intellection and action: the latter being referred, by him, to the active species of egoism ; which is held, on the adverse interpretation, to be, independently, inoperative, but yet an indispensable condition of energy on the part of the other two manifestations of the self-conscious principle. Whether ekddas/akam, in the aphorism, stands for “eleven,” or for “ eleventh,” is altogether uncertain. Aniruddha takes it to be for the former. That Vijndna deals with the Adriké unjustifiably, in respect of wbhayam, is not to be gainsaid. At the same time,‘ the Aphorisms stand uncommitted to the doctrine clearly implied thereby. We here have an addition,
86
II. The Sdénkhya-pravachana-bhdshya, or Sénkhya-bhdshya ; a commentary already spoken of. III. The Pdtanjala-bhashya- varitika, or Yoga-vdrttika ; annotating Vydsa’s commentary
in the Kdrikds, which ill comports with the theory, that they were derived, by abridgement, or otherwise, from the Sénkhya-pravachana as we now have it.
The productiveness of active egoism is the doctrine of the Puranas. For instance
भततन्माचस्गमाऽयमद्ारात् तु तामसात्। तेजसान्येन्दरियाण्याद् वा वेकारिका SM II एकादशं HAGA SAT SHCA स्मृताः
Vishnu-purana, I., 1, 46-7.
“This is the elemental creation, proceeding from the principle of egotism affected by the property of darkness. ‘The organs of sense are said to be the passionate products of the same principle, affected by foulness; and the ten divinities proceed from egotism affected by the principle of goodness; as does mind, which is the eleventh.” Professor Wilson’s Translation, pp. 17, 18.
In a foot-note to p. 16, the Professor repeats Gaudapa4da’s account of the three sorts of egoism, but without directing attention to its contradiction of his text.
For a passage to the same effect with the verses given above, see the Bhdgavata-purdna, III., 5, 29 seqq.: also III., 26, 27 seqq. The first of these two passages is cited by Vijnana on II., 18, of the Sdnkhya-pravachana. Viraraghava, in his commentary,the Bhdgavata- chandrikd, wrests the word taijasat, in the fourth verse, into congruity with the dogmas of I’s’warakrishna and his school, by explaining it to denote “ with the aid of passional egotism
Add: amniftareegitta सगरा वेकारिकाऽभवत्। तेजसानौन्द्रियाणि Seal वेकारिका SWI रकाद्श् मनस्तच खगणनानयाव्मकम्। WTA ख WATS CHAS प्रजाः Il
This is from the Kérma-purdna, Prior Section, IV. It will be found, probably quoted from memory, in the Sankhya-sdra, p. 17.
It were easy to enlarge on the peculiarities of these passages, and to point out many more cases of misapprehension in M. Saint-Hilaire’s observations on the twenty-fifth Karika.
87
on the Aphorisms of Patanjali. IV. The Sdnkhya-sdra, which awaits description. V. The Yoga-sdra-sangraha, or Jndéna- pradipa ; a succinct exposition of the Yoga. Each of these works, from the last upwards, cites all that, as here disposed, precede it. But the Sdnkhya-bhashya and the Yoga-vdrttika quote each other. ‘Their author appears, accordingly, to have been engaged with both at the same time; unless he, or some one else, interpolated one or the other.
In all probability, Vijnana lived in the sixteenth or seven- teenth century.* There is some slight ground, however, for carrying him back still further.t His nationality is unknown ; and so is his civil appellation even: for Vijnana Bhikshuf is,
* According to an anecdote which I have heard from several pandits, Nagoji Bhatta, the epitomator of Vijnana’s Sdénkhya-bhdshya, synchronized with Jayasinha, Raja of Jaypur. The time of that prince is fixed by. the fact, that, under him the Jayasinha-kalpadru- ma, by Ratnakara Bhatta, son of Deva Bhatta, was composed in the Samvat year 1770, or A. D. 1718. So much for oral tradition.
+ In the Prayoga-ratna, a work on the sixteen sacraments, by Nirdyana Bhatta, son of Rames’wara Bhatta, its author says, that he was assisted, in preparing it, by Ananta Dikshita, son of Vis’wanatha Dikshita. The father of one of Vijnana’s disciples, Bhavaganes’a Dikshita, was Bhavavis’wandtha Dikshita ; and, if the latter was one with Vis/wandtha Dikshita, and if Bhavaganes’a Dikshita was bro- ther of Ananta Dikshita, we are enabled to form a pretty correct estimate as to the time of Vijnéana Bhikshu. For Narayana Bhatta’s youngest brother’s second son, Raghunatha Bhatta, dates his Kdla- tattwa-vivechana in Samvat 1677, or A. D. 1620. Vijnana may be placed fifty or sixty years earlier.
In the prefatory verses of Vijnana’s Pdtanjala-bhashya-varttika, according to one of the many MSS. of it which I have examined, re- ference is made to one Bhavadeva, as an authority on the Yoga. Bhavadeva Mis’ra, of Patna, author of the Patanjaliydbhinava- bhashya, a commentary on the Yoga-sttra, seems to be intended. But of his age I know nothing.
t Or Vijnana Yati, as he is called just as often.
38
without question, the style of a devotee. Literature has preser- ved to us the names of three of his disciples :* Bhavaganes’a Dikshita,+ Prasidamidhava Yogin,t and Divyasinha Misra.§
The ignorance of our pandits very ordinarily confounds him with Vijnanes/wara, or Vijnéna Yogin, author of the Afitakshara, the cele- brated commentary on the Ydéjnavalkya-smriti. But there is no evidence whatever that they are identical. Vijndnes’wara, who bore the title of Bhattdéraka, was son of Padmandbha Bhatta, of the stock of Bharadwaja. His preceptor was Vis’waripa A’chérya, likewise a scholiast of Yajnavalkya. Vis’wartipa A’charya, it is said, was the same person as Sures’wara A’charya, civilly called Mandana 1118719 ; a disciple of S’ankara A’charya.
# M. Saint-Hilaire says: “Un maitre n’a généralement qu’un dis- ciple; un goroun’a quwun brahmatchiri.” Premier Mémoire, §c., p.7. Again: “Ta science, ainsi que j’ai eu occasion de le dire au début de ce mémoire, se transmet, dans l’Inde, habituellement d’un seul maitre a un seul disciple.” Jbid., p. 254. This is news in India. Such cases no longer exist; and they must always have been excep- tional.
+ I haveseena MS., without date, of the Tantra-chidamani, or Dharma-miménsd-sangraha, an elementary Mimans4 disquisition, by Krishnadeva, son of Lama A’charya, which professes to be in the hand-writing of that person. I incline to consider the age of the MS. to be, at the very least, a couple of centuries.
t Author of the S’érira-kdrika-bhdshya, or Kdrikdrtha-vinis’ chaya, a dissertation on the following enigmatical couplet, which its eluci- dator claims to take from the Mahdbhdrata :
रकया | fatafayy चींखलतुभिवेश्रोकुर | पञ्च fam fafear षट् aa feat सुखो भव॥
The dissertation is in four sections; one being allotted to each quarter of the distich.
§ Divyasinha [1318 has written a commentary, by name S'drira- kérikd-bhdashya-varttika, on the work mentioned in the last note. He styles himself fellow-student of Prasédamadhava Yogin, under Vij- nina Bhikshu ; and he eulogizes Prasadamadhava as the most eminent of their master’s disciples.
89
The following is as complete a list as I am at present able to draw up, of works treating exclusively of the Sankhya.
I. The Sdankhya-kdriké,* by YTswarakrishna. Commen- taries on it are:
A. The Sankhya-kdrikd-bhdshya, by Gaudapada, supposed to be one with the preceptor of Govinda, of whom S’ankara Acharya was disciple.+
* T return to this work for a moment. Coupling it with th Sankhya-pravachana, Colebrooke says, that both “may be considered to be genuine and authoritative expositions of the doctrine; and, the more especially, as they do not, upon any material point, appear to disagree.” Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 234.
On the subject of Is/wara, the Sdnkhya-pravachana asserts, that there is no proof of his existence. May it not be, that Is’ wara- krishna, since he avoids any such declaration, thought differently ? Possibly he would have denied, that the Sankhya, as he held it, even
implicitly rejects I's’wara.
The original Sanskrit of the Sdnkhya-karika, unaccompanied by any commentary, has been published by Professor Lassen: also, in Roman characters, by M. G. Pauthier. These werses have been translated into Latin, by Professor Lassen ; into German, by Dr. C. J. H. Windischmann; into English, by Colebrooke; and into French, by MM. G. Pauthier and Barthélemy Saint-Hulaire.
t+ See Colebrooke’s Afiscellaneous Essays, Vol. L., p. 233. S’ankara lived at “the close of the eighth, or beginning of the ninth, cen- tury.” प. 207द., Vol. IL, p. 832. Dr. F. प्र. H. Windischmann thinks, that he died not long before the year 750. Sancara, sive de Theologumenis Vedanticorum, p. 42.
The notion, that Gaudapdda was pupil of S’uka, the son of Vyasa, is generally received by the Brahmans. See, for this association, Colebrooke’s reference to the S’ankara-digvyjaya: Miscellaneous Ks- says, Vol. I., p. 104.
Gangadhara Saraswati, author of the Dattdtreya-charitra, a metri- cal composition in the Marathi language, deduces his own discipular descent, through S’uka and Gaudapada, from S’iva, as follows:
S’ankara, Vishnu, Brahma, Vasishtha, S’akti, Pardas’ara,. Vyasa, S’uka,
40
B. The Sankhya-tattwa-kaumudi, or Sankhya-kaumudi, by Vachaspati Misra, pupil of Martandatilaka Swamin.* It has been annotated in
a. The Tattwa-kaumudi-vydkhyd, by Bharati Yati, pupil of Bodha Aranya Yati.
Gaudapdda Acharya, Govinda Acharya, S’ankara Acharya, Vis’wa- ruipa, Bodha Giri, Jnana Giri, Sinhala Giri, I's/wara Tirtha, Nrisinha Tirtha, Vidya Tirtha, S‘iva Tirtha, Bharat{ Tirtha, Vidya Aranya, Sripada, Vidya Tirtha, Malaya Ananda, Deva Tirtha, Vrinda Saras- wati, Yadavendra Saraswati, Krishna Saraswati, Nrisinha Saraswati, and Gangadhara Saraswati. Gangadhara had seven fellow-students, all bearing the title of Saraswati: Bala, Krishna, Upendra, Madhava, Sadananda, 7813] १ 001, and Siddhendra.
The Aitakshard, a commentary on the Brahma-sitra, by Annam Bhatta, son of Tirumala, contains a list, identical, down to S’ankara Acharya, with the foregoing ; except that Vasishtha is preceded by Brahma and Brahma.
Gaudapada, it appears credible, belonged to the very precinct of the age of fable.
Gaudapada’s scholia on the Sénkhya-kérikd, including the memo- rial verses, were published, by Professor Wilson, at Oxford, in 1837, Prefixed to the originals is the Professor’s translation of the scholia, accompanying Colebrooke’s version of the text.
* The Sankhya-kawmudi was published in Calcutta, in the Samvat year 1905, or A. D. 1848 : pp. 49, small 8vo.
Colebrooke—Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 233,—seems to be of opinion, that the title of Zattwa-kaumudt is applied to Vachas- pati’s work only by comparatively recent abbreviation. But the concluding distich of the book itself, if not spurious, contains the shorter form. It also occurs in the list of Vachaspati’s works, as detailed at the end of his Bhamati-nibandha; and in 1६412४8 Acharya’s Sarva-dars’ana-sangraha.
Vachaspati’s exact age has not yet been discovered. But he is mentioned, as are Udayana and Pras’astapada, in the Mydya-sdra- vichadra of Bhatta Raghava, which was written in the S’aka year 1174, or A. D, 1252; and he quotes from Bhoja, who was reigning in A. 1). 1042,
41
0. The Tattwarnava, or Tattwdmrita-prakds ini, by Raghava Ananda Saraswati, disciple of Adwaya Ananda, disciple of Vis wes’ wara |
८. The Tattwa-chandra,* by Narayana Tirtha, who studied under Vasudeva Tirtha and Ramagovinda Tirtha
d. The Kawmudi-prabhd, by Swapneswara, son of Va- hinis a.
€. The Sdnkhya-tattwa-vildsa, Sdnkhya-vritti-prakds/a, or Sdnkhydrtha-sankhydyika, by Raghunatha Tarkavégis‘a Bhat- ticharya, son of S/ivaréma Chakravartin, son of Chandravandya, son of Kas 1181118, son of Balabhadra, son of Sarvananda Misa. This is little more than a jejune epitome of the Sdnkhya-kau- mudi, with a preface briefly explaining the Tattwa-samdsa which it repeats
f. The Sdnkhya-tattwa-vibhakara.t
C. The Sdnkhya-chandrika, by Narayana Tfrtha.
D. The Sdnkhya-kawmudi, by Ramakrishna Bhattacharya, who is said to borrow freely from the author of the work last named. t
II. The Tattwa-samdsa,§ expositions of which are:
* Of this work I have seen only a fragment of the beginning, going over Vachaspati’s elucidation of the first eight Kéarikds.
Two couplets, which appear in the Sankhya-pravachana-bhashya as if by its author, are cited by Naréyana. He may, then, have come after Vijnana Bhikshu.
+ This work I know only from the first volume of Dr. Albrecht Weber’s Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Koniglichen Bibli- othek. Berlin: 1853, p. 638. Dr. Weber 18 in doubt whether its author’s name be, or be not, Vans‘idhara.
+ See Colebrooke’s Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 234. Rama- krishna’s: work I have not seen. Professor Lassen-— Gymnosophista : Pref. p. ix.,—makes it possible, that it bears the second title of Sdnkhya-sdra, Prof. Wilson leaves this point undiscussed. Oxford Sdnkhya-karikd, Preface, p. vil.
§ Except for its having elicited comments that lay under con- tribution philosophical sources presumed to be no longer forthcom-
G
42
A. The Survopakdrini, by a nameless writer.
ing, the Zattwa-samasa is of slight importance. It 18 a mere index to the topics of the Sankhya.
The articles that make it up are variously reckoned by different authorities. The Sarvopakdarint counts but twenty-two ; as follows
च्या WHATS UL Vem विकाराः॥२॥ TAH WRN चगृष्णसच्चरः॥४॥ परतिस्ञ्चरः ॥५॥ ्यध्या्मम् ॥ ९ खअधिभतम् pon खधिदेवम् ॥८॥ पञ्चाभि अद्यः le ॥ पञ्च कमयानयः॥ ९० ॥ पञ्च वायदः॥ ९६ ॥ पञ्च AHA th UR il पञ्चपवाविद्या ॥ ९२ ॥ ख्ष्टाविंशतिधाशक्तिः ॥ १४॥ नवधा तुष्टिः wen अष्ट धा सिद्धिः neg uaa मल्िकाथाः ॥१७॥ अनग्रडसगेः ॥९८॥ चतुद्शविधा भतसगः ॥ ९९ ॥ विविधा बन्धः॥ eon fafaut are ॥ २९॥ चिविधं प्रमा- WH ॥ ९२ ॥ एतद् याथातय्यम् | एतत् सम्यग् ज्ञाता छतछूत्यः स्यान न gale विधेन दुःखेनाभिभूयते |
The topic ८1 aigunya-sanchara is given as two, in all the other commentaries. It is only by this bisection, that the Sdnkhya-sutra- vivarana differs from the Sarvopakdrini; and thus exhibits twenty- three so-called 54८६745.
The Sankhya-krama-dipikd recites, at its commencement, twenty- five topics, but clearly by error; as it reduces them to twenty-four, by foregoing all explication of the words trividho dhdtu-sargah, which occur after the topic given above as the nineteenth. The MS. from which Dr. J. R. Ballantyne printed the work in question, seems to be peculiar in reading trividho dhdtu-sansargah. In the preface to the Sankhya-tattwa-vildsa, where the Tattwa-samdsa is quoted, as if from the Sdnkhya-krama-dipikd, and briefly elucidated, the expres- sion trividho dhdtu-sargah is explained by the words vdta-pitta-kapha- bhedat trividhah, as intending the assemblage of wind, choler, and phlegm.
The Sdnkhya-krama-dipikd gives after No. 22 as above, the words trividham duhkham, as a topic
The reading of the Yattwa-ydtharthya-dipana corresponds with that of the Stnkhya-krama-dtpikd, barring its rejection of trividho, &c., and its considering the words etad ydthdtathyam as a topic ; thus actually giving twenty-five as the total.
Kshemananda, in his annotations on the TZuattwa-samdsa, states, that it contains twenty-five topics: but he enumerates only twenty- four ; his text being, as far as the words etad ydthdétathyam, identical with that of the Zuttwa-yatharthya-dipana
43
B. The Sankhya-sutra-vivarana, also by an anonymous author.
The eighth topic is read, in the Sankhya-sttra-vivarana, adhidai- vam cha; and adhidawwatam cha, in the Sdnkhya-krama-dipika, in the Tattwa-yatharthya-dipana, and in Kshemananda on the Tattwa-samdsa. The Sarvopakdrint, in its seventeenth topic, is unique in preferring das'a to das’ adha,
The Tattwa-samdsa is generally found appended to Vedanti Maha- deva’s Sankhya-vritti-sdra, and according to the reading of the Sarvo- pakarint. Mahadeva, however, perhaps for the sake of shortness, omits the two sentences by which the topics are usually followed.
Of the Sankhya-krama-dipika I have collated five MSS.
Another classification of the Sankhya topics, which computes them at sixty, is propounded in the commentaries on the Tattwa- samdsa, and in the Rdja-varttika as quoted in the Sdnkhya-kaumudi and Sarvopakdrim. The passage from the Rdaja-vdrttika runs as follows: ;
प्रधानालिलमेकत्वमथेवलमथान्यता।
पाराथ्ये च तथानेक्य वियेगा योग एव च॥ श्ेषटत्तिरकटटेलं मोलिकाथाः gat दश। विपयेयः पञ्चविधस्तथाक्ता नव तुषटयः। करणानामसामय्यमष्टाविंशतिघा मतम्। र्ति षष्टिः पदाथोनामष्टाभिः सड सिद्धिभिः॥
Professor Wilson—Oxford Sénkhya-kdrikd, pp. 191-2—completes, in some sort, the set of ten “radicals” here included; but only by copying V4chaspati where he supplements the text, and by misunder- standing him there and elsewhere. Vachaspati connects astitwa with both purusha and prakriti ; and yet in order to make but one cate- gory of the whole, Professor Wilson makes two: “existence of soul” and “ existence of nature.” Again, Vachaspati explains s‘esha- eritti, by sthiti, which he refers to sthéla and stkshma. Professor Wilson, dividing, as before, gives two categories, “duration of sub- tile” and “that of gross.” Viyoga and yoga are left, by Vachaspati, unexplained, as being too plain to demand elucidation. Prof. Wilson throws them out altogether.
In an anonymous marginal note to one of my MSS. of the Sén- khya-kdrikd, 1 have found the verses given above from the Réja-
५ 2
4.1
¢. The Sdukhya-krama-dipiké, Sdnkhydlankdra, or San- khya-sutra-prakshepika ;* likewise of unknown paternity.
D. The Tattwa-ydthdrthya-dipana, by Bhavaganes‘a Dik- shita, son of Bhavavis wanatha Dikshita, and pupil of Vijnana Bhikshu.
E. An unnamed volume of annotations, by Kshemananda Dikshita,t son of Raghunandana Dikshita.
III. The Sdnkhya-pravachana, on which but two regular commentaries have been ascertained as now extant :
A. The Antruddha-vritti, by Aniruddha.t
varttika, with the following stanza in place of their first couplet and a half:
पुरषः प्रकतिबैदिरदङ्कारा TUG: | * 9 र तन्माचमिन्दरियं मूतं मालिकाथाः स्ता दश ॥
The commentaries on the Tuaftwa-samdsa cite the ensuing couplet for an enumeration of the ten radicals :
च्यल्ितलमकलत्वमथाथेवच्ं Wtiaayeaaaea च | योगे वियोगे aea: पुमांसः स्थितिः ative च शेषवत्तिः |
The term astitwa, here used, is explained, by the other commen- tators, as it is by Vadchaspati. Vis'esha-vrittih is, in some MSS., substituted for cha s'esha-vrittuzh. Its import is represented as above. See, regarding it, the sixty-seventh Kdrikd of Ys’warakrishna.
* This work was published and translated by Dr. J. R. Ballantyne, in 1850. Its titles were, at that time, unascertained. |
Dr. Roer—Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, for 1851, 7. 405,—states, that the author of the Sdénkhya-tattwa-vildsa imputes. this work to Asuri; but he contests the credibility of the attribu- tion, on the showing of the commentary itself. It does not positively appear, however, that the author of the Sdnkhya-tattwa-vildsa is speaking of the Sankhya-krama-dipika.
„¶† The only copy I have inspected of Kshemananda’s notes on the Tattwa-samdsa, is imperfect in its latter half.
‡ Vijnana Bhikshu refers to him; and he is named in Raghava
Avanda’s Tattwdrnava.
45
a. The Sdnkhya-vritti-sdra, by Mahideva Saraswati,* more commonly called Vedanti Mahadeva, disciple of Swayampra- 888 Tirtha, is an abridgment of Aniruddha, but contains many original remarks by the epitomist.
B. The Sdénkhya-pravachana-bhdshya or Sdnkhya-bhashya, by Vijnana Bhikshu.t
* The Girvdna-pada-manjart by Varadaraja Bhatta, takes notice of a gloss on a Sdnkhya-bhashya. In the opening couplets to many copies of the Laghu-kaumudi,—which was written in Samvat 1715, or A. D. 1658,—Varadaraja is called pupil of Bhattoji Dikshita, and, as such, preceded Nages’a Bhatta by two generations. See Cole- brooke’s Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I1., pp. 12, 18. If, then, it be not Mahadeva’s epitome which Varadaraja intends, he probably refers to some work now lost.
+ It was published by the editor of this volume, in 1854-1856, and forms os. 94, 97, and 141 of the Bibliotheca Indica. The oldest MS. used for it was dated in Samvaét 171], or A. D. 1654.
Dr. J. R. Ballantyne, in 1852-1856, published the Sdnkhya- pravachana, with portions of commentary, and an English transla- tion of both, in three volumes. As, in the last two, he has simply reprinted the Sanskrit as edited by me, some acknowledgment of obligation would not, perhaps, have been more than my due.
The first edition of the Sdnkhya-pravachana-bhadshya bears the imprint of Serampore, 1821: 8vo. pp. 220. This seems to be the publication announced as having been projected by “ Mr. Carey and his assistants,” under the auspices of the Council of Fort William, and the Asiatic Society of Bengal. See Captain Roebuck’s Annals of the College of Fort William, p. 157. The faults of that impres- sion need not now be made the subject of particularization. The editors of the volume had the advantage of a manuscript, or manu- scripts, much superior to the use they made of their appliances.
The Sénkhya-pravachana contains 526 aphorisms, that is to say, in the six lectures, 164, 47, 84, 32, 129, and 70, respectively. As for this enumeration, even if it had not the support, by express declaration, of annotators, yet the tenor of their’ scholia would, n general, authorize it with sufficient distinctness, But it is expressly
AO
a. The Laghu-sdn hya-sétra-vritti, or Laghu-sankhya-vritti, by Nagojf Bhatta, or Niges’a Bhatta Upadhyaya, 18 an abstract of the last.
supported, by notation, in all the copies of the pure text that 1 have consulted, and in most of the MSS. of Vijnéna’s commentary, and of Nagoji Bhatta’s abstract of it, that I have collated. Anirudha, and his epitomist Mahadeva, of whose works such MSS. as I have examined likewise have the aphorisms numbered, concur, essentially, in the forementioned distribution and aggregate. The only differ- ence which they discover consists in halving the 121st aphorism of Lecture V. ; thus bringing out 527 as the sum total.
M. Saint-Hilaire—Premier Mémoire sur le Sankhya, p. 6,—com- putes the Sankhya aphorisms at 479; or 156, 46, 76, 30, 122, and 69. This came from his trusting, with a confidence not altogether scholarlike, the uncritical Serampore volume, which, with other faults, frequently gives text as commentary, and sometimes gives commentary as text. The consequence, to his essay, of neglecting due circumspection and research, is sufficiently disadvantageous. I add a couple of specimens.
Commenting on the fifty-fourth Karikd, M. Saint-Hilaire writes :
“Lecture 3, 80078 44 [48]: ‘En haut, il y a prédominance de la bonté.’
“ Kapila ne va pas plus loin; et aprés avoir indiqué, comme on I’a vu, l’existence des trois mondes en n’ indiquant que le monde des dieux ott regne la bonté, il ne dit point quelle qualité prédomine dans les mondes qui viennent aprés celui-la. Il est probable que la Karika, en faisant prédominer l’obscurité dans le monde inférieur, et le mal dans le monde du milieu, se conforme 4 une tradition dés longtemps’ recue ; mais, dans les axiomes du maitre, ce complément > peu prés indispensable de sa pensée n’ apparait pas, et il n’en a rien exprimé, pas méme par une de ces réticences qui lui sont si habituelles. Il faut ajouter que le commentateur des Sofitras, Vidjnina Bhikshou, ne s’est pas arrété d’avantage & la doctrine que nous retrouvons dans la 1 11९४, et qu’d la suite de Kapila ila omnis de parler des deux autres mondes, placés au-dessous du monde supérieur. I] se borne 4 dire que par ‘en haut’ Kapila comprend le monde qui est au-dessus de la terre habitée par les mortels.” Premier Mémoire, &८., pp.
213, 214.
47
C. The Sdnkhya-taranga, by Vis wes’waradatta Mis’ra, or Deva Tirtha Sw4min, but who was more generally known as
The restoration of III., 49 and 50, which, with the explanations of them, do not appear in the Serampore impression of Vijnana, at once accounts for several items of the fifty-fourth Kérikd, and com- pletely frustrates the criticism just quoted.
Again : “ Colebrooke a fait remarquer (Hssays, tom. I., page 232) que les Sotitras attribués 4 Kapila mentionnaient le nom de Pantcha- sikha. Le fait est exact, et Colebrooke en tirait cette double consé- quence: d’abord, que les Sottras n’étaient pas de Kapila lui-méme, car 1] n’aurait pas cité le nom de son disciple; et, en second lieu, qu’ il y avait pour 16 Sankhya des autorités antérieures aux 8007188, puisquils invoquaient eux-mémes le témoignage d’un maitre plus ancien qu’ eux. J’ admets les deux cons¢quences signalées par Cole- brooke. Mais il aurait di ajouter que la citation rapportée par lui se trouve dans l’avant-dernier sotitra de tout 16 systéme. (Lecture 6, 80012 68). A cette place, les interpolations ont été plus faciles eertainement que dans le corps méme de |’exposition, et il est fort possible qu’une main é¢trangére ait glissé celle-ci 4 la fin de l’ouvrage. Cette simple indication du nom de Pantchasikha ne nous apprend d’ailleurs absolument rien sur la vie de ce personnage; elle ne fait Premier Mémoire,
१9
que consacrer le souvenir d’une de ses doctrines. &९., pp. 253, 254.
Now, in the first place, the suggestion broached by M. Saint- Hilaire, that VI., 68, as being the penultimate aphorism of the Sdnkhya-pravachana, may, not improbably, be an interpolation, is weakened by the fact, that it is followed by two aphorisms instead of one; and his objection now lies, on his line of argument, more directly against the text commemorating Sanandana,—VI., 69,— which, in his reading of Vijnana, is consigned to the notes. Again, both he and Colebrooke failed to observe V., 32, which, likewise, in Vijndna, as received by the former, is simply a scantling of com- mentary.
The fact, that Panchas‘ikha is mentioned in the Sdnkhya-prava- chana, fairly compels the alternative of rejecting all we read of his relation to Kapila, or of adopting the view, that Kapila was not the author of those sentences in their present shape. I cannot
48 Kashthajihwa, goes over but a part of the Sdnkhya-pravachana.
believe that he was. In point of style, for one thing, they have not, as I have before remarked, the slightest flavour of antiquity.
Vedanti Mahadeva, annotating V., 32, infers, simply from Pancha- s‘ikha’s name being given in the singular number, that the aphorist purposes to mark him as a separatist. The singular must, then, be taken to indicate, as compared with the plural, an inferior degree of respect. But Sanandana, though dignified with the title of Acharya, is yet spoken of in the singular number. Mahadeva’s words are: पञ्चशिख दूत्येकवचेनेन परमतमतदिति सटचयति। |
In the Mahdbharata, XII., 11875, Panchas/‘ikha is assigned to the family of Parés’ara; and the same poem, XII., 7895, speaks of his mother, Kapila.
At XII., 7886, of the Mahabharata, it is said :
यमाः कपिलं Bey: परमि प्रजापतिम्। स मन्ये तेन रूपेण विस्मापयति हि खयम्
“IT can imagine, that he whom the Sankhyas call Kapila, the mighty sage, the patriarch, is, in person, under this form, exciting our admiration.”
Such is the unmistakable sense of the stanza; and so thinks Nilakantha Chaturdhara: स @fqe:! तन पञ्चशिखसक्लन | तत्प्रश्ष्यलात् तत्तल्यत्वस्। Yet Professor Wilson understands the meaning to be, that Panchas‘ikha is there “named .. .. Kapila.” Oxford Saénkhya-harikd, p- 190. Dr. Weber repeats this mistake: “als auch Kapila heisst.” Indische Studien, Vol. 1., p. 438.
A Bangali translation of the Saénkhya-pravachana-bhashya, entitled Sankhya-bhdsha-sangraha, was undertaken by Ramajaya Tarkalankara Bhattacharya, son of Mrityunjaya. So, at least, the work itself sets forth: but the Friend of India for 1828, No. VIII., p. 567, makes them to be joint translators, and adds, that they were, the last- named in succession to the other, “chief pandits in the Supreme Court.” Mrityunjaya, surnamed Vidyalankara, had previously been head-pandit in the College of Fort-William. This version conforms very closely to the Serampore edition of the original, from which, while still unpublished, it appears to have been prepared. How much of the translation was executed, or how much of it was printed, 1 am unable to say. All that I have seen of it is a fragment of 169
49
Tt is a fanciful performance, of slight extent, and of little value.*
IV. The Rdja-véritika, complimentarily ascribed to Bhoja, King of Dhara,+ is, probably, a complete body of Saénkhya doctrine.
V. The Sdnkhya-sdra, by Vijnéna Bhikshu, lays out the whole of the Sankhya system within a small compass, and yet perspicuously.
VI. The Sankhya-tattwa-pradipa, by Kavirdja Yati, dis-
octavo pages, breaking off, abruptly, in the midst of the commentary on the eighty-ninth Aphorism of the first Lecture—according to my numbering. The volume was published at Serampore, in 1818. It opens with a short preface in Sanskrit; and it gives the s#éras in the original language, and in large characters.
At Benares I have inspected a manuscript translation, in the pro- vincial dialect, of the Sdnkhya-pravachana and of Vijndna’s exposi, tion in abstract. The author was Ahitégni Rakshapéla Dube; who also showed me Hindi versions, made by himself, on a like model, of the Yoga, Nydya, Vais/eshika, Vedanta, and Mimdns4 Aphorisms, and of S/andilya’s Sentences on Devotion. Each of the translations was accompanied, like that of the Sdénkhya-pravachana, by a Hindi gloss, abridged from the Sanskrit.
* Its author owed his epithet to his wearing a cleft stick on his tongue, during the latter years of his life, as a check on loquacity. Vis'wes waradatta died at Benares about ten years ago. His pre ceptor was one Vidy4 Aranya Tirtha, a Séraswata Bréhman. The Sankhya-taranga belongs to a series of tracts called, collectively, S'rt-kas'i-rdja-sdgara. I have seen at least twelve or fifteen works by its author, who composed largely in Hindi and Marathi, no 1688 than in Sanskrit.
¶† For this appropriation I am indebted to the learned Pandit Kas inatha S/astri Ashtaputre, late of the Benares College. The Pandit is by far too well acquainted with Bhoja’s commentary on the Yoga-sitra, to have mistaken it for the Raja-vérttika. The latter treatise, he assures me, was in his possession for several years, during which he constantly lectured on it to his pupils,
H
50
ciple of Vaikuntha, is a composition of similar scope, but of inferior value. )
VII. The Sdnkhydrtha-tattwa-pradipikd, by Bhatta Kes‘ava, son of Sadénanda, son of Bhatta Kes/ava, resembles the last, and is not a work of much account.* |
In the Sdnkhya-sdra we have the best known existing treatise in which to study the system ascribed to Kapila. This treatise consists of two sections, in prose and in verse, re- spectively. The first section is in three chapters, treating of emancipation as the fruit of discriminative apprehension, of the character of such apprehension, and of that from which spirit is to be discriminated.t The second section contains seven chapters, explanatory of the nature of spirit, of the
* Colebrooke speaks of a work entitled Sangraha, having to do with the Sankhya. I do not recall having met, in the course of my researches, with any reference to it, See Miscellanous Essays, Vol, 1. p. 234. 7 |
The Sénkhya-muktdvali, by Vodhu, is the name of a Sankhya work possibly now, or once, in existence ; if the bare word of a man who has declared to me, that he once possessed and perused a copy of it, is to be received. But I strongly suspect that he fabricated the title of the treatise, for the occasion.
Mr. William Ward has published a list of Sénkhya compositions, in his work on the Hindus ; Vol. II., p. 121: 8vo. ed. of 1822. That list is, however, one mass of errors, and errrors almost too gross to deserve advertence. It assigns the Kapila-bhashya to Vis’ wes’warl, perhaps instead of Vijnanes’wara, as one sometimes hears Vijnana Bhikshu incorrectly called; while it speaks of the Sankhya-prav chana-bhdshya as a distinct composition, and neglects to name its author. Vachaspati Mis’ra’s Sdnkhya-kaumudt is, in like manner, duplicated. This for a sample.
+ In that chapter, the third, there is much about the term ५१५, At p. 6, swpra,a note on the subject has been promised ; but, for the present, it must be postponed. In the meantime, the reader 6 referred to my translation of Pandit Nehemiah Nilakantha’s Rational Refutation, &c., pp. 42, ete.
91
distinction between spirit and what is not spirit, of coercion of the mind, of emancipation in the body,* and of supreme emancipation. `
But for my being on the point of leaving India, with no thought of returning, I should append to this preface a full translation of the Sdnkhya-sara, accompanied by annotations.t
The following pages were printed from two undated manu- scripts. One of them I procured at 8608768 ; and the other belongs to the Asiatic Society of Bengal. For the readings of the latter, I have to thank Mr. Cowell, the Society’s Secre- tary. Though I spared no pains in the quest, no other manu- scripts but those I have used were obtainable ; and my text, I am well aware, is not immaculate.
Camp Tappa, State of Gwalior, March 15, 1862.
* Colebrooke represents the Sdnkhya-sdra as being a “ treatise on the attainment of beatitude in this life.’ Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. L., p. 231. That topic is one of two to which its concluding chapter only is devoted.
+ Mr. Ward’s version of the Sankhya-sdra, with all its imperfec- tions, is of some value. It will be found in his work on the Hindus, Vol. II., pp. 121-172 of the octavo edition printed in 1822.
साङ्ख्यसारः |
श्रीयुतेन फित्स-रडवाड-दल नामकमडेादयेन
प्रकाशितः |
कलिकातानगरे
व्यातिट-जिण्न्-यन्ते ग्रग्योऽयं म॒ब्राद्धितऽभ्रत् | WRIT १७८्द् | Ho १८६५ |
सङ्ख्यसारः।
पवंभागः। © प्रथमः परि च्छेदः |
मददाख्यः SIAM जगद इर LAT ।
सर्वात्मने नमस्तस्मै विष्णवे सवेजिष्णवे ॥ ९॥
साह्याकारिकया लेशाद्ात्मतच्तं विवेचितम्।
साह्सारविवेकाऽतो विज्ञानेन प्रपच्यते ॥ २॥
प्रायः ASAT साह्य प्रक्रिया कारिकागणे |
साऽताऽच व्यति AN तद् नुक्तांशमाचतः॥ रे ॥
RBA VHS: SET विस्तरान् मया |
WIA तस्मात् ATA ASUS वच्यते ॥ ४॥
आत्मानात्मविवेकसासरात्कारात् कटेल्ाद्यखिलाभिमान-
निकृत्या तत्कार्यरागदेषधर्माधमीद्यनुत्पाद्त् पूवात्यन्नकमणां चाऽविद्यारागादि सुकायुच्छद रूपद्ादन विपाकानारम्भक- त्वात् प्रारब्धसमाष्यनन्तरं पुनजंन्माभावेन चिविघदुःखा-
2 qigeitca
व्न्तनिडृक्तिद्धपा मेढा भवनीतिश्रनिस्मुनिडिष्डिमः। तच श्रुतयः। अथाऽकामयमाना यऽकामे निष्कामे न तस्य प्राणा eRe समवलोयन्ते। आत्मानं चद् विजानोयाद् यमद्मोति पुरूषः | किमिच्छन् कस्य कामाय WORT A ॥ यदा सवे प्रमुच्यन्ते कामा येऽस्य डदि चिताः । अथ मल्याऽग्टतेा भवत्यच ब्रह्म समश्नुते ॥ कामान् यः कामयते मन्यमानः स॒ कमभिजायते तच तच | पयोप्रकामस्य HATTA इहैव सवं प्रविलोयन्ति कामाः ॥ TET | AY ATT | यथा कर्म| रागदेषादये दोषाः सवं ्रान्तिनिवन्धनाः। काया GE भवेद् दोषः पुण्यापुण्यमिति शरुतिः ॥ तदशादेव सर्वेषां सवदे दसमद्धवः। इति । मोखधमं च। | इ व्ियाणोन्दरियाथखच नापसपन्त्यतषुलम्। दोनश्च करणे दी न दें पुनरेति ॥ तसमात् तषात्मकाद् रागाद् बोजाज् जायन्ति जन्तवः | इति । ननु रागाभावेऽपि केवलकर्भवशान् नरकादि पर्ने कथं रागस्य कमसदकारित्वं विपाकारम्म उपपन्नम् | नर- काद् विशेषत रागाभावेऽपि सामान्यत रागरस्च्वात्।
पूवंभागे प्रथमपरिच्छेदः। R
निषिद्रस्व्यादि गामिनां स्त्यादिरागादेव तप्रलामयनारो- समालिङ्गनादिङ्पनर केत्यत्तेः। यद्यप्यविद्यास्ितारागेष- WTS ज्तशपच्वकमेव जन्मादि विपाकारम्भे कमणां सद- कारि भवति, तदेव सक्ताः सद HALA fas मना यच निषिक्तमस्य।
इति श्रुतावभिमानरागदषादि जन्यस्य विषयवासनाख्यसङ्ग- सामान्स्येव जन्मादि विपाकारम्म क्मसदकारित्वसिद्धः।
यच यच मने ददी धारयेत् सकलं धिया |
Was SNS भयाद् वाऽपि याति TS IATA I! दल्यादि स्मतेश्च। तथा च क्ञेशमूलः कमाशयः। सति मूले aa जात्यायभागा इति योगद्चाभ्याम्यदृष्टे तदिपा- Hay च AMA देतुत्वचनाच च। तथाऽप्यविद्याक्मिता- सत्वे राग्याऽऽवगश्यकत्वाद् देषभययोश्च रागमूलकत्वाद् राग एव HA जन्मादि देतुतया वथोाक्तवाक्येनिदि श्यत इति । नन् ।
TI चाऽस्य कमाणि तस्मिन् दृष्टे परावरे | इ त्यादि श्रतेज्ञोनस्य प्रा्ोनकमेनाशकत्वमेवो चितं TES कथमिष्यत इति चेन् न ।
ज्ञानाग्निदग्धकमाणं AAS: पण्डितं बधाः | दूत्यादि वाक्येद्दस्याऽपि वणेन लाघवाद् द्ादपर त्वस्येव नाशादि वाक्येष्वपि कल्पनाचित्यात्। कमणां Tey क्तेशाख्य-
8 ABTA: |
VERASSA THER | कर्मणां नाशस्तु प्रारब्यभोगनते चित्तनाशादेव भविष्यति। अता लाकसिद्धेनाऽविद्यानाश- नैव द्वारेण कर्मफलानत्यत्तिसन्भवान् न ज्ञानस्य कम नाशकत्वं गोरवादित्यादिकं योगवार्तिके प्रपच्चितमस्माभि- रिति fen) तस्माद् विवेकसाक्षात्काराद् विद्या्सितारा- गादि क्ेशनिवत्तो चिविधदुःखाल्यन्तनिच्त्तिरूपपरमपुरुषार् सिध्यतोल्युपपन्नम् | तथा च योगष्द्यम् | देयं दुःखमना- गतम्। विवेकख्यातिरवि्षवा eas इति।
दति श्रोविन्ञानभिक्षविरचिते साद्यसारेऽभ्यदितलादादो विवेकस्यातिफलस्य परमपरषायस्य परिच्छेदः ॥ * ॥
मथ facta: परिच्छेदः |
अथाऽत्मानात्मविवेकन्ञानस्य किं SSA ASA | आत्मा
तावत् सुखदुःखाद्यनुभवितेति सामान्यते लेाकप्रसिद्धिः अ- नात्मा च प्रकल्यादिजेडवर्गः तयेरन्योन्यवेधम्य॑ण परिणमि- त्वापरिणामित्वादिषरूपेण दोषगुणत्मकेन देयोपादेयतया परथक्वेन ज्ञानं विवेकन्ञानम्। तथा च Bla) स एष नेति नेत्यात्माऽग्द्या न fe गरद्धतेऽशोया न fe शोयंतेऽसङ्गा न fe सज्यतेऽसिते न व्यथते न रिग्यतोत्यादि । aire |
साऽथ प्रतिनिवृ्तास्तो TATU TAT |
खतेाऽन्यां विक्रियां मोच्यादास्थिनामञ्जसेसत ॥
अथाऽसेो प्रतिना दमियं डि कलुषात्मिका |
प्रव इस्रभावेऽदमिति त्यजति at विदन् ॥
एवं द् देन्दियादिभ्यः शएदत्वेनाऽऽत्मनि Ge |
निखिला सविकारेयं त्यक्तप्रायाऽदिचमवत् ॥ इति । खतं च। एवं तच्वाभ्यासान् नेति नेतीतित्यागाद विवेकसिद्धिरिति | तत्वनज्ञानस्य लक्षणं च मात्स्ये छतम् |
अव्यक्ताद्यं विशषान्ते विकारेऽस्िंश्च वणिते |
चेतनाचेतनान्यत्वन्नानेन ज्ञानमुच्यते ॥ दति । यद्यप्यन्योन्यभेद ज्ञानमेव विवेकन्ञानं तथाऽप्यात्मवि- शष्यकमेव तन्मास्षकारणं भवति । Ala वाऽरे zea इत्या द् ुतिसमुतिभ्यः। नन्वनात्म्न्यात्मनुदिपा याऽविद्या
६ साह्यसारस्य
पातश्लादिषुक्ता तस्याः कथमात्मविशेष्यकविवेकन्ञानना- wea प्रकारादिभेदादिति चन् न। तादशाविद्याया अना- त्म विशेष्यकविवेकन्नानदारेणाऽऽत्मविशष्यकविवेकन्ञाननाश्य- लादिति। यच च यागेन निविकल्यकमात्मन्नान जायते तद् विवेकन्ञानद्ारेव मासकारणं भवति न तु सासाद विद्यानिव- तेकत्वाभावात्। BE गारः कता TA Sere sana विद्या ससारानथदतुतया अतिसमतिन्यायसिद्वा तस्याश्च निवतिका नाऽहं गोर इत्यादि रूपा विवेकख्यातिरेव भवति। समाने विषये द्याद्याभावत्वप्रकारकग्राद्याभावन्ञानत्वेनेव वि- राधात्। अन्यथा ्रएक्तिनिविंकल्यकस्याऽपि ce रजतमिति ज्ञानविरेधिलवापत्तेः। किच्च यथोक्ताभावन्नाने थाद्यन्ञान- विराधित्वस्याऽऽवश्यकतया निविकल्पक ज्ञानस्य खमनिवतक- तवं न पथक् कल्प्यते गेरवात्। अपि चाऽथाऽत आदेशे नेति नेति न दोतस्मादि ति नेत्यन्यत् परमस्तीत्यादि श्रुल्या विवेके- पट्शपेसयेत्तमेापदेशा नाऽसीत्यच्यते | कशेचसेचन्ञयारे वमन्तरं ज्ञानचक्तषा | श्तप्रकतिमेश्चं च ये विद्यान्ति ते परम् ॥
इति गीतादि वाक्येश्च विवेकज्ञानस्येव मे्छदेतुत्वमुते | अता विवेकन्ञानमेव सासादविद्यानिङ्त्या area: | यागेन केवलात्मसासात्कारस्त॒ योग्यानुपलब्धिविधयेषा- ध्यादि गतधमाभावमुपाध्यादिमेदं च यादयति ततेाऽविद्या- निद्त्तिरिति। एतेन सर्वभतेषु समतान्ञानमात्मनः सवा.
पुवंभागे दितोयपरि च्छेदः | ©
त्मकलादि जानं च श्रुतिसुत्योर्गोयमानं विवेकन्ञानस्थेव गेष- शतं सवेद शनेषु मन्तव्यम्। ज्ञानान्तराणां सा्ादभिमाना- निवर्तकत्वात् | ब्रह्ममोमांसायां त्वयं विशषा यत् परमात्म विवेकशेषत्वम्। WEI त् सामान्यात्मविवेकशरषत्वमिति दिक्। ननु यथोक्तविवेकख्यातिताऽप्यत्यन्तमविद्योच्छदेा न घटते। विवेकख्यातेर विव्याप्रतिबन्धकत्वमाचत्वेन विवेक ख्यातिनाशेत्तरं पनरभिमानसम्भवान् 1 एक्तिरजर्तविवेक- द शिनेऽपि कालान्तरे Weal रजतभ्रमवदिति। मेवम्। दृष्टान्तवेषस्यात् | भ्एक्तयादिषु जातेऽपि साक्लात्कारे दू रत्वा- दिश्पविषयदोषाणएणं परलादिशूपकरणदेषाणां चेत्यत्ति- सम्भवेन WMA युक्तः। अनात्मन्यात्माभिमाने त्वना- दिवासनेव दोषः सवैसिकसम््रतः जातमाचस्याऽभिमाने दो- घान्तरानपलबग्धेः। सा मिथ्याज्ञानवासना यदा विवेकख्या- तिपरभ्यराजन्यदटटवासनोन्मूलिता तदेव विवेकसाक्ात्कार- farsa | तत्यवेमवश्यं वासनालेशते मिथ्यांशस्य कस्याऽ- प्यात््मनि भावात् तस्यां च विवेकख्यातिनिष्टायां जातायां न पनरभिमानः सम्भवति वासनाख्यद्षाभावादिति त॒ मदर् que | यदि तु बद्विपरूषयोरन्योन्यप्रतििम्बनादिकम- विवेककारणं दोष इष्यते तद्ा तु तदं बाधित्वेव विवेक साक्षात्कार उदिति इति न तस्य पुनञ्रंमदतुतवं फलबलेन AISA तस्य टदोषत्वकल्यनासम्भवादिति | विवेकख्यातिनिष्ठा च Raley लसिता ।
< साह्यसारस्य
प्रकाशं च प्रवर्ति च मोादमेव च पाणडव | न दृष्टि सम्प्रवृत्तानि न निवृत्तानि काङ्ति ॥ उद्ारोनवद्ासोने गुणेया न विचाल्यते । सवारम्भपरित्यागौ गुणातीतः स उच्यते ॥
इति । गुणातोते निव्त्तगुणाभिमानः। अधिकं तु ज्ञानिल- quay वच्यामः। नन्वेवमपि विवेकप्रतियेगिपद्ाथाना- मानन्तयेन प्रातिखिकर्पेः सर्वपदार्भभ्योा विवेकयद्ासम्भवात् कथं विवेकख्यातेभास देतुत्वमिति चेन् न । दश्यत्वपरिणा- मित्वादि सामान्यद्पेविवेकय्रदसम्भवात्। तथा हि । द्रष्टा ख- AMARA भिन्नः प्रकाशकत्वाद् या यस्य प्रकाशकः स॒ तस्माद भिन्नः यथा घटादालाके वृत्तिप्रकाश्याच् च afa- रित्यनमानेना९ऽद्वन्तदश्येभ्यो बद्िवरत्तितद्ारूढाथभ्या वि- वेकतेा बुद्विसादी सिध्यति | कमकटविरेधेश्चाऽन्करूलस्तकंः। अचर आत्मनि व्यमिचारवारणाय सासात्पदम्। ठत्ति- दारोवाऽऽत्मनः खविषयत्वात्। नन्वचाऽनुमाने algae माचाद् विवेकः सिध्यतु | तस्या एव साक्तादात्मदश्यत्वात् न प्रछत्यादिभ्य इति चेन् न। वृत्तीनामन्ञातसत््वाभावेन DAMA लाघवाद् वच्छमाणएतकगणाच चाऽखिलवृन्नोनां दरष्टा विभुकरूरस्थनित्येकन्ञानखरूपतयेव सिध्यति | यथा न॑- यायकानां fait सकटका कायत्वादित्यनुमाने लाघवात् कतुरेकत्वनित्यत्वादिकं तदत्। तच विभुत्वं परिच्छिन्नमिन्न- त्वं कूटस्थत्वादि कत्वं च परिणामिभिन्नत्वादिकमतेा वद्या
पुवभागे दितीयपरिच्छेदः। ~
त्मनेरग्दश्यरूपते विवेकय्दे सति तदत्तरान्मानेन परिण- मित्वापरिणामित्वादिशपेः सामान्यतोऽप्यात्मानात्मविवेकय दा घटत sal Bava पातच्रले सत््वप॒रुषान्यताख्यातिरेव मोकदेतुतया खले YA व्यासभाष्ये प्रोक्ता | TATE न्यता खयातिरूपटदग्दश्यविवेकयदेत्तरं यथोक्तरीत्या प्रलल्या- दिविवेकयदात् | तच च rane वुद्धस्यत्वेन बुद्धिसत्त्वमु- क्तमिति। एवं च प्रसत्यादिपदाथानां विशष्यज्ञानाभावेऽपि तदिवेकन्ञानं Aa) एतेन टग्दश्यविवेकाद विद्यानिव्त्ति- रिति प्राचां प्रवादोऽष्युपपादितः। किच्ाऽऽत्मा प्रकतितत्का- भ्यो भिन्नोऽपरिणामित्वादित्यायनुमानेरपि सामान्यते दश्यविवेके द्रष्टरि सम्भवतोति। यत् त्वाधुनिका वेद्ान्ति- नुवा दृश्यत्वेन प्रत्यादनं द्रषटुत्ेन च प्रृत्या्यखिल- जडभ्य आत्मविवेकं मन्यन्ते। घटद्रष्टा Vga: सवथा न घटो यथा। SURE तथा दृद नाऽहमित्यादि रूपतः ॥
तन् न। Ala वाऽरे zea इत्यादि श्रतिभिरात्मनेऽपि दृश्यत्वात् साक्ताद ट श्यत्वविवच्तया च प्रकछत्यादरसङ्गहात् ACME तदृशंनात्। अथव कल्यनोयं अत्मना वत्ति व्याप्यत्वमेव दृश्यत्वं अरत्यादिभिवि धोयते न तुः*प्रकागश्यत्व- SURGING | खयम्मरकाशखरूपस्य प्रकाशापेक्ताविर- दात् | अतेाऽच दश्यलवं प्रकाश्यत तच् चाऽऽत्मनि नाऽस्तीति तदपि तुच्छम्। यथा दादमितयनुभरयमानेऽप्यात्मा चेन-
१० साह्यसारः।
न्याख्यफलव्याप्या न VINA भवद्िर्यते तयेव बेद्धेर- पोष्यते सुखदुःखादि मच्वेनाऽपि बुद्धः खप्रकाश्तया चेतन्ध- व्याप्या न भवतोति | तथा चाऽऽत्मनोव बुद्धावपि दश्यत्वा- सिद्या दृश्यत्वेन atu ॒वबुद्धिविवे केऽत्यन्तापेक्षितेाऽपि न सिध्यतीति भाष्यादिषु चाऽन्यान्यच दू षणान्युक्तानोति दि क्। नन् सम्भवत्ेवं सामान्यद््पेण विवेकयदः। तथाऽपि सा- मान्यान्धेव बह्लनि सन्ति परिणामित्वसंदत्यकारित्वसुखदुःख- मेदात्मकत्वचतुिंशतितक्चत्वाटन्यतसतेसते ख्पेनिवेकयदा- णां मेक्तदेत्तवेऽनन्गमटोष इति चेन् न । अभिमानप्रति- बन्धकनज्ञानतवेनेवाऽनुगमादिति। Bt सामान्यदूपेण वि- वेकस्येव सवाभिमाननिवतेकतया Ase दे द नेन्ियाणो- त्यादि प्तयेकर्पैविवेकयदाणां tetas अुतिसल्योसुच्य- मानं कथं azafa चेन् al अवान्तरविवेकानां समा- न्यविवेकंप्रप्चमाचलत्वादिति॥
दति ओ्रीविज्ञानभिक्लविरचिते साद्सारे माचडेतुविवेक- ज्ञानस्य were परिच्छेदः॥ * ॥
अथ ठृतीयः परिच्छेदः |
अरथ के ते प्रजल्यादयो येभ्यः Tat विवे चनोय इत्युते। प्रकतिर्बद्यदङ्कये तन्माचेकादशेन्दरियम् । walla चेति सामान्याच् चतुविंशतिरेव ते ॥ एतेष्वेव धर्मधम्यभेदेन गुणकर्मसामान्यानामन्तभावः। तच VARMA सात्तात् परम्यरयाऽखिलविकारापादानत् Wael छतिः परिणामद्ूपाऽस्या इति व्युत्पत्तेः | प्रतिः शक्तिरजा प्रधानमन्यक्तं तमे मायाऽविदयेल्यादयः प्रतेः पयायाः । aaa विद्याऽविद्येति मायेति च तथा परे । प्रतिश परा चेति वदन्ति परमषेयः ॥ इति Gai) सा च साम्यावस्थयोपलक्षितं सत्त्वादि द्रव्यच- यम्। कार्यसत््वादि वारणणयेपल्ितान्तम्। साम्यावस्था च न्यनाधिकभावेनाऽसंदननावस्था BRATS fa यावत् | म- Salsa तु कायसत््वादिकं न कद्ाऽप्यकायेवख भवतोति agate: | वेषम्णावस्थायामपि प्रकृतित्वसिडय उपलक्तितमि- aa | अकायमिति sree निष्क्टाथः। स्वा दिगुणएवती arate प्रकृतिरिति न शङ्कनीयम् । स् ्वाटोनामतद्वमत्वं तद्रपत्वादिति साह्खष्टचेण सत्त्वादीनां प्रसतिखष्हपत्वहेत्ना प्रतिधमत्वप्रतिषंधात्। योगद्टच- तद्वाष्याभ्यामपि गुणानामेव प्रकतित्ववचनाच् च। UA एव c 2
१२ साद्खरुार्स्य
AAA तदन्यप्रकनिकल्यनावेयथ्याच् च । प्रकतेगुणण इत्यादि वाक्यं तु वनस्य sat इतिवद् वेध्यम् | सत्वं रजस्तम इति प्रकतेरभवन् गुणः|
इति सत्त्वाटौनां प्रछतिकायेत्ववचनं तु गुणएनित्यतावाक्च- विरोधेन मदत्तत्वकारणोभ्रतकायंसत््वादि परमेव | ASST- दिशिं गुणवैषन्यात् yaa) तच् च age सजानोय- सवलनेन गुणन्तर व्याठत्तप्रकाशादि फलेएपदितः रुत्वादि- व्यवहारयोम्यः परिणाम इति। एतेनाऽ्टाविंशतितत््वपस्तो- ऽष्यपपादि ते मन्तव्यः वेषम्य एव सच्वादिव्यवदारश्च Bat Za | यथा तम vacay आस॒ तत्यरेणेरितं विषमत्वं प्रयात्येतद् वे रजसे शप्र तद्रजः खल्वीरितं विषमत्वं प्रयात्ये- तद् वे सत्त्वस्य ूपमिति | सत्त्वादि चयं च सखप्रकाशलाघव- प्रसादादि गुणवत्तया संयोगविभागादि मत्तयाऽनाथितते- पाद्ानत्वादिना च द्रव्यत्वेऽपि पुरषोपकरणत्वात् पुर्षबन्ध- HA च गुणणश्न्देनाच्यते। इ न्द्ियादि वत्। गुणानां सुख- दुःखमे दात््मरकल्वप्रवाद स्त॒ धमधम्यभेद्ात्। मनसः VE aA | तच सत्वं सुखप्रसाद् प्रकाशाद्यनेकधमकं प्राधान्यतस्तु सुखात्मकमु चते | एवं रजेाऽपि दुःखकालष्य- ्व्याद्यनेकधमकं प्राधान्यतस्तु दःदात्मकमुचयते। तथा तमोऽपि मोदावरणस्तमनाद्यनेकधगकं प्राधान्यतस्तु मादा- MRT | त एव धमास्तेषां लक्षणानि भवन्ति। सत््वादि- सञ्ज्ञा चाऽन्वथा। सता भावः सत्व ुत्तमत्वमिति व्यत्य्या
शै ~ प ~ पूवेभागेटतीयपरिच्छ्दः। XR
fe धमंप्राधान्येनेत्तमं पुरुषोपकर णं सत्वशब्दाथः। मध्यमं च रजःश्ब्दाथा रागयोगात्। अधमं च तमःश्दार्थः। अधमाव- रणयोगात्। तानि च VASA प्रत्येकमस्धव्यक्तयः। ल- घुत्वादि धर्मरव्योन्यसाधन्थं sae च गुणानामिति साह्य ead | अच fe aa लघुत्वादि ना axat सत्त्वानां साधम्य तेनैव रजस्तमोभ्यां वेधर्म्यम्। एवं चलत्वादिना गुरत्वादिना च qxat रजसां बहनां च तमसां तद्भयसुक्तमिति | किच्च यदि सत्त्वादि चयमेकेकव्यक्तिरेव स्यात् तत् चयं विभ्वेव वक्तव्यम्। एकद्ाऽनेकब्रह्माण्डादि खशटिश्रवणात्। तथा च कायाणाम- नन्ततेचिव्यं न घटते। न च संयोगवेचिव्याद् वेचित्यं स्या- दिति areal farat चयाणां गुणानां खतः संयागवेचि व्यास्म्भवात्। द्रव्यान्तरस्य चाऽवच्छेदकीभ्रतस्याऽभार्वादिनि। तस्मात् सत्वा रौन्यसद्खव्यक्तिकान्येव द्रव्याणि । Ay faa वचनं तु सत््वत्वादि विभाजकेपाधिचयेण वेशेषिकाणां > द्र व्यवचनवदिति सिदम्। नानि च सत्वादौनि यथायोग्य मणुविभुपरिमाणकानि। अन्यथा रजसञ्चलखभावत्ववचन विरोधात। आकाशकारणत्वस्य च विभत्वाचित्यात्। सुवेषां कारणद्रव्याणं विभत्वे कायाणां परिच्छिन्नत्वानुपपन्ते् | नन्वेवं वेश्रोषिकेक्तान्येव पाथिवाएवादीनि प्रकतिरित्यायात- मिति चन् न। गन्धादि गुणण्न्यत्वेन कार णद्र व्येषु प्रथिवोः त्वाद्यभावतेऽस्माकं faery | तदुक्त विष्णुपुराणादिषु ॥ अव्यक्तं कारणं यत् तत् प्रधानग्टषिसत्तमेः।
१४ साद्खंसारस्व
प्राच्यते wala: eam नित्यं सद सदात्मकम्॥
शब्दस्यशविद्ोनं तद् रूपादिमिर संयुतम् |
Fara तज् जगद्योनिरनादि प्रभवाप्ययम् ॥ द्त्यादिना।
वेशेपिकाणां कारणट्रव्येष गन्धाद्यन॒मानं त् भ्येऽस्माभि-
निराछ्लतम्। अथैवमपि प्रक्रतेरणविभसाधारणसत््वादयनेक- व्यक्तिष्धपत्वेऽपरि ्छन्नत्वकत्वाक्रियत्वसिदान्त्ततिरिति मेवम्। कारणद्रव्यत्वषहपप्रकतित्वेनेवाऽपरिच्छिन्नत्ववचनात्। गन्धत्वे- न गन्धानां परथिवोव्यापकतावत्। आकाशदि प्रसनोनां विभः aaa प्रछतिविमत्वसिद्रान्तोपपत्तेश्च। तथा पुरुषभेदेन सगं भेदन च भेदाभावस्येवेकशब्दाथत्वात्। अजामेकामिति Ala- TAA SANA | अथाऽध्यवसायाभिमानादिक्रियाराहित्य- सयेवाऽक्रियशब्दार्थत्वात्। अन्यथा श्ुतिसमतिपूक्तस्य प्रकतिन्ता- भस्याऽनपपत्तेरिति। प्रसनिगताञ्चाऽपरे विशेषा भाष्य द्रषटव्याः। प्रत्यनुमानं चदम्। सुखदःखमोदात्मकं मद्ादि काय सुख- दुःखमोदात्मकद्रव्यकायं सुखद्ःखमेदात्मकत्वात् वस्त्रादि- कार्यशय्थादि वदिति | AAA चाऽचाऽनुयादकंस्तकंः। एवं सामान्यताऽनुमितायाः प्रकछतेविशेषाः WATS योगाच चाऽव TAM: | अनुमानस्य सामान्यमाचविषयकत्वात्। AAA सुखादि कमुपलभ्यते बाद्यवस्तुषु सुखादे किं प्रमाणं येन = ्टान्तता स्यादिति | उच्यते | अन्तःकरणस्य सुखादि हेतुतया विषयेषु सुखादिकं सिध्यति। न च पादि गतोत्तमत्वादि कमेव
पुवभागे टतीयपरिच्छेदः। १५
सुखादयुत्यादने नियामकम् | उत्तमत्वादेजातिषूपत्वे नोलत्व- पोतत्वादिना जातिसाङ्क्यापन्ते। कालादिभेदेरेकस्या एव VIA: सुखदुःखोत्पाद कत्वा च् च। अतः सुखादि मत्तमेवो- तमलादिकम्। किच्च घरष्हपमिति प्रय यवत् स््ोसुखं चन्द- नसुखमिल्यादि प्र्ययाद्पि विषये सुखाद्युचितम्। अधिकं तु भ्ये Zea | तदेवं प्रकतिनिषूपिता। wea rea | Vad VANE FETS ALAS जायते। तस्य धमादि- खपप्रकटगुएयोगान् मदत्स॒ञज्ञा तदेव च लच्णम्। मदान् जदि प्रह्ेत्याद् यश्च तस्य पयायाः। तथा चोक्तमनुगतायाम्।
मदानात्मा मतिविष्णुजिष्णुः way वोयवान् |
बुद्धिः प्रन्ञोपलबिश्च तथा ब्रह्मा धतिः सतिः ॥
GUAM BA VAST निगव्यते।
सवेतः पाणिपाद श्च सवेताऽक्षिशिरोमुखः ॥
सवेतः श्ुतिमांल् लाके सवं व्याप्य स तिष्ठति।
अणिमा लघिमा afar ज्योतिरव्ययः ॥
ज्ञानवन्तश्च ये केचिद लब्धा जितमन्यवः |
विमुक्ताः सर्वं एवते ATTA ॥
विष्णरोवाऽदि सगेषु Saale Ry I दति । अचर सच्वादयंशचयेण मदत टद्वताचयोपाधित्वात् तद् विवेकेन ब्रह्मविष्णुशिवत्ववचनम्। तदुक्त विष्णो |
सात्विक राजसश्चव TARY चधा मदान्, दति। Fel च।
१६ aay
सविकारात् प्रधानात् तु मदत्तत्वमजायत |
मद्ानिति यतः ख्यातिलाकानां जायते सद्ा ॥
गुणेभ्यः TATU देवा विजज्ञिरे |
एका मृतिस्लयो देवा ब्रह्मविष्णुमदेश्वराः ॥ टूति। अणिमेत्यादिभावनिदशे धमधम्यभेदात्। ब्रह्मशङ्रा- पश्चयाऽप्याद विष्णुख्पेणेव मदानाविभवतोति विष्णरोवेत्यर्धे- नोाक्तम्। इदमेव मदन्त्वमं शता रजसतमःसम्भदेन परिणतं az व्यष्टिजोवानामुपाधिर धमादि युक्तं GRA भवति। AE दुपरागाद् विपरीतमिति सा्खद्टचात्। ASAT प्राधान्ये नाऽराधारण्येन चाऽध्यवसायोा त्तिः | मद्द् दङ्कारमनस्ति- तयात्मकस्यान्तःकरणस्य ASA बोजावस्येति। अच प्रल- AWA मदताऽदङ्गार TASS HA शस्तमेव FATWA | अनुमानेन सामान्यतः कायाणां सकारणएकत्वमाचसिदधः न तु SOI भ्रतादिकमे वाऽन्तःकरणादिक्रमे वेत्येकतरावधारक- मनुमानं सम्भवति । खष्टलिङ्गाभावात्। अुतिसत्यनुखदोतं यथाकथच्िल् लिङ A मददादि करमेऽसीति भष्येऽसमाभिः प्रदशितिम्। Heard निरूपितम्। अदङ्ारा Freud | मदत्त्वाद् दङ्ार उत्यद्यते। अङ्करात् Wea! तस्य चाऽभिमानव्रत्तिकत्वा द् द ङ्ार सज ज्ञा | कुम्भकार सञ्ज्ञावत् | तदेव लक्तएम्। तस्य च पयायाः कोम प्राक्ताः।
अदङ्रोाऽभिमानख्च कता मन्ता च SHA |
श्रात्मा SF USA जोव यतः VAT: VST II
Tawa ढतीयपरिच्छेदः। १७
इति । स॒ चाऽदङ्धारस्तिविधतया चिविधकायदेत्ः। तदुक्तं काम। वैकारिकसेजस्च WATS तामसः | चिविधोऽयमदङ्धारो मतः Venza द ॥ तेजसादिन्दियाणि स्युर्देवा वेकारिकाद् दश। एकादशं मनश्चाऽच खगुणेनाभयात्मकम्॥ भूततन्माचसगंस्त॒ WATS TAT प्रजाः। afi वेकारिकः aan) नैजसेा राजसः। खगणेने- द्दियव्त्तिषु सादाग्यूपणात्कषण | उभयात्मक ज्ञानकमा- भयेन्द्रियात्मकम्। अन्यचमना अभ्वं नाऽभ्रोषमित्यादि रत्या मनसा ज्ञानकमाभयेद्ियसदकारित्वसिदधरिति। एकाद श- द्दियदेवाश्च। दिग्बाताकंप्रचेताश्चिवङकीन्रापेन्रमिचकाः। चन्द्र इति। अङ्गारो निखपितः। इन्द्रियादीनि निरप्यन्ते | अद्व्ारादादेा मन उत्द्यते | श्ब्द्रागाच्छचमस्य जायते भावितात्मनः | खूपरागात् तथा FAH गन्धजिघुक्तया ॥ इत्यादिना माक्तधमादाविन्दियादौनां मनेच्रत्िरागादि HAGA | ततञ्वाऽदकद्घारात् WHR दशद्दि- याणि पञ्चतन्माचाणि sag | इन्द्रियतन्माचयोश्च काय- क्रारणभावस्याऽभावात् क्रमनियमे नाऽसति | तचेद्ियेषु ना-
९८ agate
इस्यवान्तर कायकारणभावः प्रमाणाभावात्। तन्माचेषु त्वसति। स यथा। शब्दतन्माचाद् वच्यमाणक्रमेण स्यशतन्माचं ्रब्दसपशाभयग्णकमेवं करमेणेकंकगणएञ््या परतन्माचचयं पुवपूबेतन्माचेभ्य उत्यद्यते TAS तन्माचेषु करमणे के कगुएवृद्धिवचनात्। AY TBAT TAT जायन्ते। AAS पच्छतन्माचाणां ag भूतानां चेत्यत्ता कमः कमविष्एवादिपराणषक्तः | यथा कूम | भ्रतादिस्त विक्वाणः शब्दमाचं ससज द | आकाशं सुषिरं तस्ादुत्यन्न शब्द TIT | HAIG ATAU: UTA ससज इ | वायुरत्यद्यते AAA, FA YM गुणा AA ॥ इ त्यादि क्रमेणेति 1 नन्वेवमाकाशदिश्रतचतुष्टयस्याऽपि त- ्वान्तरारम्भरकत्वेन प्रसतित्वापत्या केवलविकछतित्वसिदान्त- तिरिति चेन् न। आकाशादोनां खयशादितन्मावेष्वदङ्ारा- पष्टम्भमातचरेण कारणत्वस्य पुराणषूक्तत्वादिति | तद्व चया- विंशतितच्चानामत्यत्तिर्क्ता | तच पच्चभ्रतानि वजयित्वाऽ CHIC च बुद्धा प्रवेश्य सप्तद शकं लिङ्गश्रोर सज्ज्ञं भवति व- छरिन्धनवदात्मनाऽभिव्यक्तिखानत्वात्। तच् च सवेपुरुषाणां aaa प्राक्ृतप्रलयपरयन्तं तिष्ठति | तेनैव चेदलाक- परलाकयोः संसरणं ओवानां भवति | प्राणश्च sera वत्ति- भेद इत्यते न लिङ्कशरीरात् sae निदि श्यते । तस्य लिङ्ग- रीरस्य खल्माणि पच्चग्भतान्याश्रयश्चि चादिवदाश्रयं विना
yaaa ढतीयपरि च्छेदः । ९९
CASA लेकान्तरगमनासम्भवात् | इदं च लिङ्गशरी- रमादौ SIs उपाधिभतमेकमेव जायते। तस्येव बिरा- डाख्वच्छमाणसखलग्ररीरवत् | ततश्च व्यष्टिजोवानामपाधि- भूतानि व्यष्टिलिङ्गशरोराणि तदं शश्तानि तता विभज्यन्ते | पितुलिङ्गशरीरात् पुचलिङ्गशरोरवत्। तदुक्तं SARC । व्यक्तिभेदः कमविशेषादिति। मन्नाऽप्युक्तम् |
तेषां त्ववयवान् SAA षष्ामप्यमितैजसाम् |
सन्निवेश्याऽऽत्ममाचासु सवेश्रतानि निममे ॥ इति । षष्णामिति षडिनद्दियं समस्तलिङ्गशरोरापलक्तकम् । तथा च SAY: खलिङ्गशोरावयवान् SAM अल्पान् चआ- त्ममाचासु खांशचेतनेष् संयाज्य सवेप्राणिनः ससजत्यथः। लिङ्गशरोरं निद्धपितम्। ख्ुलशरोरोत्पत्तिरुच्यते | दशगुणि- तमदन्त्वमध्येऽदङ्ारोऽदङ्धारस्याऽपि दशगणितस्य मध्ये व्योम arash दश्गुणितस्य मध्ये वायुवायारपि द्श्गु- णितस्य मध्ये तेजः ANA दशगुणिनस्य मध्ये जलं जल- साऽपि दश्गणितस्य मध्ये एथिषो समुत्यद्यते | सेव स्थूल- शरीरस्य बोजम्। तदेव च पथिवोष्टपं बोजमण्डर्पेण परि Waa! तस्याऽपि दश्गणितस्याऽण्डद्धपस्य एथिव्यावरणस्य मध्ये चतुद शभुवनात्मक BIN स्थूलशरोर तत्सद्ग ल्यादेवेत्यद्यते। तेनेव शरौरण खयम्भनारायण इत्युच्यते | तदुक्तं मनुना GAYA WAC |
साऽभिध्याय शरोरात् खात् सिखटक्षविविप्राः प्रजाः।
yp 2
Re साहूेसारस्य
अप एव ससजाऽऽदो तासु बोजमवाखजत्॥ तद्ण्डमभवद्ेमं सदखांप्एसमप्रभम् | afa जज्ञे खयं बह्मा सवलाकपितामदः ॥
= =, ~ स॒ वे TO प्रथमः स॒ व पुरुष उच्यते। आदिकता स श्तानां ब्रह्माऽये समवर्तत ॥
आपो नारा इति AAT आपे वे नरनवः।
ता AAA पूवं तेन नारायणः सृतः ॥ इत्यादिनेति | तत एव चाऽऽदिपुरूषात् व्यष्टिपुरुषाणां विभागा- दन्ते च तैव लयात् स॒ एव चैक आत्मेति अुतिसत्योव्यव- हियते। अता न व्यवदहारपरतया नारायण एव सवभताना- maa शुति्रतिविराध इति। ततश्च स नारायणे विरार्- शरोरो खनाभिकमलकणिकास्थानोयस्य Garage चतुम् खाख्यख्यग्भुवं SE तद्राराऽन्यानपि व्यष्टिशरोरिणः स्थाव- रान्तान् ससज | तथा च सयते |
तच्छरोरसमुत्यन्नः BAR: करणैः सद |
SAN: समजायन्त गातेभ्यसतस्य धीमतः ॥ दति। यत् तु शेषशायिने नारायणस्य नाभिकमलथराचचक्त- रादिभ्यश्चतुमृखस्याऽऽविभावः BIA तद् देनन्दिनसर्गण्वेव कल्यभेदेन मन्तव्यम् | दनन्दिनप्रलयेग्वेव हि नारायणशरोरे aaa सुप्तानां carat चतुमुखादिक्रमेणाऽऽविभावः TIMI: सकाशाद् घटते न तादिसरगेषु। देनन्दिनप्रलय
पुवभागे ढतोयपरि च्छेदः| २९
एव लोलाविद्य देण शयनादिति | तदेवं सङ्गेपतश्वतुविंशतित- त्वानितेषां डष्टिषपं प्रयोजनं चोक्तम्। तच यद् यस्माज् जायते तस्य तदापूरणेनेव स्थितिः तसस्य संदारोऽपि तत्रैव भवति । यद् यस्माज् जायते तच्च तत् तच प्रविलोयते | लोयन्ते प्रतिलोमानि जायन्ते चोत्तरोत्तरम् ॥ इति भारतादिभ्य दूति। एते च ष्टिखितिसंदार्पाः स्थूला एव परिणामाश्चतुविंशतितत्वानां कूरस्थपरुषविवेकाय प्रद- शिताः Se Bay प्रतिक्तणएपरिणामा एतेषां सयन्ते। तथा। नित्यदा दङ्गभ्चतानि भवन्ति न भवन्ति च। HAM MOAI SHAN तन् न दृश्यते| इति | अतश्च सवै जडवस्तु परमार्थतः WARTS ATA | ततश्च तस्माद् विरज्याऽऽत्मव परमार्थसत्ये दुःखमोरभिर््र ्व्यः। तदुक्तमनुगोतायाम्। अव्यक्तबोजप्रभवे बुद्िस्कन्धमये मदान् | मददादङ्गारविरप इद्धियाङर केाटरः॥ मदाभ्रूतप्रशाखश्च विशषप्रतिशखवान्। सदापणः AAG: प्रभाप्रभफलादयः॥ AMA सवेभ्रतानां ATA सनातनः। एतज् ज्ञात्वा च तत्वेन ज्ञानेन परमासिना ॥ हित्वा चाऽत्तरतां प्राप्य जदाति ्ल्य॒जन्मनो | दति श्रोविज्ञानभिचविरचिते साह्यसारे विवेकप्रतिये- गिनां प्रकृत्यादीनां खरूपपरिच्छंदः॥ ° ॥ दति साद्धसारख पृवेभागः॥
TAA: ॥
प
प्रथमः परिच्छेदः ॥ अथ शिष्यः सुखेनेव अदत् पद्यमालया। विवेकस्याऽनयेोग्यात्मा पुरुषाख्यो निदप्यते ॥ १॥ तच सामान्यतः सिद्धा जानेऽदमितिधोबलात्। ` zeit नित्यविभ्वादि धर्मरोेव स॒ साध्यते॥ २॥ भाक्ता नित्यस्तदर्थत्वात् तत्कर्मात्यादितत्वतः। मददादिविकाराणणां सवंषामविशेषतः॥ ३॥ अपि चाऽदृष्टसंस्काराधारत्ाद् NASA | धोरनादिरताऽस्ाञ्च fear भोक्तुरनादिता ti ४ ॥। खस्वामिभावानादिलवग्डते भोक्तृव्यवस्थितेः ‹ SUA वृत्तिसंस्कारवच््ं खत्वं तु बह्िषु ॥ ५॥ खाम्यं खनिष्ठसंस्कार देतव्त्तेख भोक्तरि | HAY घटते GAA RAAT ॥ ६ ॥ भेक्तु्चाऽनादिभावस्य विनाशे दत्वसम्भवात् | न नाशा ATA भोक्ता नित्यो दि सिथ्यति॥७॥ जन्धो ज्ञानप्रकाशोऽस्ध नित्यत्वे तु न युज्यते | न दप्रकाशे कुचाऽपि प्रकाशेत्यत्तिरोच्छते ॥. ८ ॥ कार्ये प्रकाशाख्यगुणेऽवयवानां दि तद्ग णः | कारणं तेन नाऽनिल्यः प्रकाशो नित्यवस्तुनि ॥ < ॥
उत्तरभागे प्रथमपरिच्छद्ः। रद
प्रकाशाश्रयसंयेोगात् प्रकाशथम इन्धने |
SHSM चाऽऽव्रतेभेङ्गात् प्रकाशोत्यत्तिविभमः ॥ १०॥ तस्मान् नित्यात्मने ज्ञानं नित्यं वाच्यं तथा BAA लाघवाज् ज्ञानमेवाऽऽत्मा निराधारः प्रकरप्यते ॥ 22 It अनािततया द्रव्यं संयोगादेश्च तन् HAA |
अते जानेऽदमिल्यादिवुदिरप्यपपद्यते ॥ ९९॥ पिण्डेऽन्धोरिं मूढानां घवेवाऽनादिदोषतः। संयोगात् तच पिण्डे त् ज्ञानवत्वमतिः प्रमा Ul ९३॥ सन्त् वाऽऽधेयताल्यत्वजन्मनाशादिवुद्यः।
PAY नभसोवाऽथन्ञानस्य ज्ञानमाचके ॥ १४ ॥ तस्माल् लाधवतरकौणए बाधकाभावतस्तथा | श्रुलयादिभिश्च arena चद्रपेणेव सिध्यति ॥ ९५॥ तज् ज्ञानं विभु नित्यत्वाद् द् दव्यापितयाऽपि च। मध्यत्वे नाशिता दि स्याद एत्वे वाऽच्पट्शता ॥ १६ ॥ विभुत्वेऽपि खधोत्तेरेव साक्तान् निरोक्तणात्।
न सर्वच सद्ा सर्वभानं ज्ञाने प्रसज्यते ॥ १७ ॥ अर्थभानं चितावर्प्रतिकिम्ा मले वुधैः ।
gata चितौ साक्ात् प्रतिविभ्बनयेग्यता ॥ YE ॥ अतेऽसङ्ेऽपि कूरस्थचेतन्धे विभनि ya व॒त्तिद्ारकमेवाऽन्यभानं फलबलान् मतम् ॥ १८ ॥ अन्वयव्यतिरोकाभ्यां ठत्तिजन्यतयाऽखिलः। FORA कामादि धषु ASAT ॥ २०॥
8
साह्युसारः |
अताऽन्तःखविकाराणां SAS SATA: ।
कूटस्थ एव साऽपि चिदाकाशगणएः समः ॥ २९॥ नित्यप्दधे नित्यवृद्धा नित्यमुक्तो farce | खप्रकाशे निराधारः प्रदोपः सवेवस्तुष् ॥ BP ॥ नन्वेवमेकतेवास्तु लाघवादात्मनां खवत्।
eda सुखदुःखादिवेधम्धादिति चेन् न तत् ॥ ९३ ॥ भागामोगादिवधर्म्यणेकख्पेऽपि चिद्गणे | अतिसुतिभ्यामुक्तन भेदसिद्धः परस्परम् ॥ ९४॥ सुखादिप्रतिबिम्बात्मा भागोऽष्यस्य न वस्तुतः | तथाऽप्यस्य चिन भावाभाव स्यातां डि भेदके ॥ २५॥ SUPT यथा श्छामरागे स्थरिकभेदकौ । खचृष्टान्तश्च विषमे वेधम्धासिदधिनाऽम्बरे ॥ ९६ ॥
इति ओीविज्ञानभिक्तविर चिते साद्यसारे परुषसखरूप-
परिच्छेदः ॥ * ॥
अथ दितोयः परिच्छेदः |
अथाऽऽत्मानात्मवधम्यं गुणदोषात्मके तयोः |
वच्छ विस्तारतो येन विबेकेऽतिस्फटो भवेत् ॥ १॥ सामान्यात्मघनाकाशे सान्निध्येरितशक्तिभिः
जायतं लोयते भूत्वा भूयाऽयं जगदम्बुद्ः॥ २॥ चिगुणात्मकशक्तीनां परि णामेरतशितिः। अधारविधेया विश्रोपादानमविकारतः ॥ ३॥ यथाऽऽधारतया तेयं धरेापाद्ानभिष्यते | खस्थपाथिवतन्माचदारेणेवं चितिर्मता ॥ ४॥
AAT जगदुपाद्ानमपि ब्रह्माऽविकारतः। करूटस्थनित्यपयायपरमा्थंसदच्यते ॥ ५॥ खाथत्वात् Maza च सत्वात् परमार्थसत् | खतः स्थित्या खतः सिद्धा लकः सन्निति दीयते ॥ ६॥ प्रतित्षणविकारोण तस्ते श्पेरपायतः। प्रस्रत्यादिरसत् सवा जडाथाऽब्धा तरङ्गवत् 11 ७॥ यत् तु कालान्तरेणाऽपि ASIST A वे। परिणमा,द सम्मतां तद वस्वित्यादेकस्मतेः ॥ ८ 1 पराथाघोनसत्वाच च परदशा च fafea: |
परतः सन्नसन्नेव तत्परापेत्तया मतः ॥ © ॥ VAI त॒ ASIA नासिते सत्यता Bar | इति गारुडतशचेवं सद सच््वव्यवसख्यितेः ॥ १० ॥
रह्
साह्यसारस्य
तान सन् ना.सदिद जगत् सद रुद्त्मकम्। श्रसदिषयकत्वाच् च तस्य धोसतात्तिका भमः ॥ १९॥ जगदृत्तस्य VA सारोऽसारस्तथेतरत्।
प्रप्स्य सिरां fe चितिरोवाऽविकारतः 11 १९॥ तदन्यद् खिलं तच्छमसारत्वाददर्यते। तथाऽन्डतमसच् चाऽपि तद् पेक्तास्िरत्वतः ॥ १३॥ एवंविधेवाऽऽत्मसन्ता अन्यासत्ता च दशिता | TASS विस्तरतो यथा लेशात् ATTA ॥ १४॥ GH जायत्यसद्रपः BH जाद्रद् सदपः ॥
ग्ट तिजन्मन्यसद्रपा Bal जन्माऽप्यसन्मयम् ॥ ९१५॥ जगन्मयो भान्तिरिति न कद्ऽपि न विद्यते | विद्यते न कद्चिच् च जलबुद ट् वत् सितम् ॥ VE ॥ BHA परं सत्यं ASI: संसार दृष्टयः | प्क्तिकार जलं यद्वद् यथा ARAFAT ॥ ९७ ॥ रसि स्वगतं शान्तं पर मात््मघनं प्रचि | अरचिन्त्यचिन्माचवपुः परमाकाशमाततम् ॥ १८ ॥ तत् सर्वगं सर्वशक्ति सव सवोत्मकं खयम्।
यच यच यथोदेति AA तच तच वै ॥ १९ ॥ आविभावतिरेभावमयास्तिभुवनामयः। TAA Aas मराविव मरोचयः ॥ २०॥ असतेव सतो तायनद्येव BED चला | मनस्वेन्द्रनालग्रोजागती प्रवितन्यते ॥ २९ ॥
उत्तरभागे दितीयपरिच्छेदः। २७
ब्रह्मणा तन्यते विश्वं मनसेव VIA |
मनेमयमते विश्वं यन् नाम परिदृश्यते ॥ ९९॥
यो द््रद्रमतिमढोा खूढा न वितते पदे |
वञ्चसारमिदं तस्य जगद सत्यसद्व सत् ॥ २३॥
BRUTY कनके कानके करके TA |
करकन्ञप्निरेवाऽस्ि न मनागपि हेमधीोः॥ २४॥
तथाऽज्ञस्य पुरागारनगनागन्द्रभासुरा |
दयं दश्यदगेवाऽस्ि न तन्या परमाथदक् ॥ BY.
इत्यादि वाक्येवासिष्ठे नाऽत्यन्तासत्यतादिता |
जगतेाऽपरवाकयेदिं सत् कायै प्राकृतं मतम् ॥ ९६ ॥
THA यस्िन् सन्तिष्ठते जगत् |
तमाङ्गः प्रतिं कचिन् मायामेकेऽपरे ATA ॥ २७ ॥
सुषुप्रावस्या चक्रपद्मरेखा शिलाद रे |
यथा खिता चितेर न्तस्तथेयं जगद्ावलो ॥ SE ॥
प्रकतिन्रततिव्याम्नि जाता ब्रह्माण्डसत्फला |
इत्यादि वाक्यैः साद्योयसत्कायाययुपवणनात् ॥ २८ ॥ दूति ओरीविज्ञानभिक्तविरचिते erat ्रात्मानात्मनाः
सत्यलासत्य ववेधम्यपरिच्छद्ः॥ x ॥
अथ ठृतीयः परिच्छेदः ॥
तदेवमात्मनः सत्ता द शिताऽन्यविलक्तणा |
अथ दिद्रुपतां वच्छे बुद्धिवरत्तिविलक्षणाम् ॥ १॥ अनभू तिञितिबाधा वेदनं चाच्यते पमान्
वेद्य जडं तमेऽज्ञानं प्रधानादि कमुच्यते ॥ It वेदनं वेद्यसम्बन्धाद्व वेच्चभिधोयते।
यथा प्रकाश्यसम्बन्धात् प्रकाशाऽपि प्रकाशकः॥ ३॥ यथा वाऽथापरागेण भागमथंस्य BTA |
एवं वेद्धापर क्तस्याऽखांशस्याऽऽधारतांऽशनि ॥ ४ ॥ अरसङ्गायां चिता वेद्यापरगोऽयं न Naa | किन्त साक्ताद् दारता वा चिति तत््रतिकिभ्बनम्॥ ५॥ ATG] ठत्याख्यकरणाभावाद नृपरागतः। चितिनवेसते चेत्यं विभत्वेऽपि च सवतः॥ € ॥
तथा चिदपि इत्याख्यकरणाभावतेऽथवत् | SATA FATA तिष्ठत्यज्ञातसत्तया ॥ ७ ॥ तदेवं चिन् निराक्रारा प्रजशकाश पणो | तिष्ठत्यव्यक्तष्पा च मोक्ता वृत्यभावतः ॥ ८ ॥ बह्वच त्तस्त साकारा परिच्छिन्ना च दीपवत्। व्यक्ता च FAST तददद सङ्खया तणभङ्गरा ॥ ९ ॥ जडा च NEVINS घर दोपादि वन् मता |
त्तेः प्रकाशता त्वथाकार त्वाद् रतेव दि ॥ १०॥ FAS AACA SATS TS GATT | सवाकारत्वयेरयत्वात् सेवं सवेप्रकाशिका ॥ ९९१॥
उत्तरभागे टतीय परिच्छेदः RE
न पुनडत्निद्रष्टतवं चितस्द्िन्नदरष्टता |
इत्तयता गारवं स्याद् दयोन्नाठत्वकल्पने ॥ १९ ॥ बद्याखढ BUI ACT प्रतिबिम्बितम् । पश्यत्यनुभवे नान्यो द्रष्टा बुद्यादि कोऽखिलः 11 १३ ॥ इत्येवं बह्िव्रत्तिभ्यो gaa चितोरितम् |
चिद् चित्वाख्यवेधन्यं द् दादिभ्यः स्फरन्ति दम् ॥ १४ ॥ अन्यान्यप्रतिरिम्नेन सारूप्याद् व्रत्तिबाधयेः | TUMAS ATA लेादेऽग्रव्यवदारवत् ॥ ९१ नेवाऽल्यवु द्याशक्याऽयं विवेको कत्तिबाधयेोः |
UMA AA सम्पदा AHA श्रेष्ठता यतः ॥ Vw विन्ञानवादिने बडा बरत्तिमाधाविवेकतः ज्ञातात्मल्श्रुता मूढा मेनिरे स्षणिकों चितिम् ॥ १७॥ सत््वपुंसे विवेकेऽयं afaag erat: |
नाऽशक्यः सुधियां यदद्॑सानां ALATA 1 १८ ॥ एतदन्तश्च संसारा मेखम्तचेव संसत: |
यद् FMAM विवेकेन तद्दाधस्याऽवधार णम् ॥ १० ॥ सवेाऽप्यनभव वेद् न कञ्चदपि वेदताम्। विवेकमाचमस्िन् दि भासमानेऽप्यपेक्तते ॥ २९॥ aa विवेक्तुं बाद्याथ न शक्यो त्निमिश्रणात्। अते वत्ते विवेक्तव्यो वृत्तिनाधतयेव सः ॥ २१ ॥ यथा बुद्धा विवेकाय नाऽग्निरङ्गारमिश्रणात् | सेऽङगारे तु विवेका ETAT स्फुटम् ॥ Be |
ae ae
SAVa खनो स्वप्रे Cea ' स्वयंज्यानि-श्वद्टपेण तस्या FESTA: sh STATA प्रकाशा St वख स aS मते वुधैः । घराटिभ्या यथाऽऽनाक आनाकाच चाऽपि THA Feil वृत्तेः ATA प्रकाशत्वाद ते SST ।
वृत्तिभ्या भिन्न SHA TBI मागः खद शने 1 २५॥ एवमादि प्रकारण बद्धिसत्तवप्रकाशतः |
विलक्षणतया सिदखित्य काशाऽस्य भारूकः |) २६ 1 खग्रदेदादिदष्टान्तेस्तस्मच्छत्यादि दर्तः |
SHAS SSAA AH AAA मता ॥ FO ॥
aq देदादिकं सवं चिद्धिन्नं चिति भासते |
qed विशेषस्तु यद् बाद्यमपि भासते 11 8 ॥ aq मनेमयत्वाच च स्ताच् चिद्धिषयोऽखिलम् | करणद्रारते AUG] चिते जायति गोचरः ॥ २८ ॥ सधं दे दादिकं AAAI ASIA: |
भानि चिद्धोग्ि नाऽचार्थवाद्यान्तभेदते भिदा ॥ ३० ॥ चिद न्न वासनाते धोः प्रमाणाद् वाऽथेपिणो। ततश्ितोऽर्थभानं यत् तत् समं खभ्रजाय्तोः ॥ रे९॥ तदि दं खानभल्येव प्राच्यते न परोक्तः | खप्रटृष्टान्तसदशे नपायाःसत्याऽऽत्मद शने ॥ Bll सुषु fe यथा SH SHAT aaa
AAA BRST मन्यते जागरे तथा ॥ BS I
उत्तरभागे टतोयपरि च्छेदः Bt
aaa खदूपावस्यितेसतद |
HARA मायिको त् खषासादप्यते धिया ॥ BB
नुदः सुषुधिसतमसाऽऽवरण तदिलक्षणा |
चितेः सुषुधिव्र्याख्यदृष्यावरणष्रटन्यता ॥ २५ ॥
OU: कुरस्थनित्यश्च खस्धोमाचरत्तिटक।
व्या ख्यदश्यविर दात् AIT नेते पुमान्॥ ३६ ॥
afaen यथा बोधस्तथा सर्वच सवद |
रेव तप्यते मूदेव्ययनाशादि नाऽऽत्मनः ॥ २७ ॥
दुःखभागमदारेगनिद्नं देदगेदिनो |
द्धनं त्यज्यते मूढेरमदानिद्रासुखं यतः | BE ॥
अनादि बुद्धिगादस्थ्यं विवेकस्लयज्यते न चेत्।
न ATS बाद्यसव्यासादि दाऽमु चाऽसखं परम् ॥ ३९ ॥
समचिन्माचद्पेषु खपरात्मस॒ सवदा |
बुद्धिमाचविवेकेन खपरादिमिद् SAT Il ४०॥
चिन्माचे निगुणे खामिन्यारेप्येवाऽऽत्मकंढताम् |
खाम्यवज्ञापराधेन वध्यते घोः BRAM । ४९ ॥
साध्व तु धोः पतिं दद्रा याथातथ्येन तत्यरा ।
इ दाऽऽनन्द मयौ चान्ते पतिद दे लयं ब्रजेत् ४९ I
नादं कता सुखो दुःखो चिन्माचाकाशरपकः।
एवं नाथं चिन्तयन्ती न पल्युदुःखमोगद्। ॥ ४३॥ द्रति श्रौविज्ञानभिच्तृविरचिते साद्यखारे श्रात्मानात्म-
नाद् चिच्ववेधम्यपरिच्छेदः॥ ° ॥
पथ चतुथः परिच्छदः ॥
इत्यवमात्मनः प्रोक्ता बुद्यादिभ्या विलक्षणः | चित्प्रकाशेऽधुनाऽऽनन्दख्पता वचने तथा ॥ १॥ दुःखं कामसुखपेश्षा सुखं दुःखसुखात्ययः।
इति स्मरतेः सुखात्मत्वं नित्यनिदःखताऽ त्मनः । २ ॥ परिभाषाबलाद् Seats: सवेत सम्मतः |
अन्यथा परिभाषेयं AIM भवेद् ठया । ३॥ यद्या परेाक्तवाद्न परमप्रियताप्तये |
खपिका सुखी; पुंसि विभुत्वाप्ये खशब्दवत् ॥ ४ ॥ नाऽऽनन्दं न निरानन्द,मल्यादि रतिभिः स्फुरम् | आ्मन्यानन्द शपत्वनिषेधाट् युक्तिसंयुतात् ॥ ५॥ उपासाद्य्थप्रन्यत्वान् नेति नेति श्रुतेस्तथा | निषेधवाक्यं बलवद् विधिवाक्यादिति खितिः ॥ € ॥ निर्निरानन्दमिति च खेपाध्यानन्दभाक्तृताम् | खामित्व्पिणेँ वक्ति न निधन इतोव दि ॥ ७॥ DURA च सवेस्मादिति शल्या सुखादपि । उक्त आत्मा faa सुखलवाक्तिश्च नाचिता ॥ ८ ॥ आनन्दाद्याः प्रधानस्य इति वेद्ान्तचतः। वेद्ान्तेऽपि न सिद्वान्त आत्मनः FSWT < ॥ विस्तराद् ब्रह्ममोमां साभाष्येऽस्माभिः परोत्तितम्। चितेरसुखद्पतवं प्रेमा व्याख्यायतेऽधृना ॥ १० ॥
उत्तरभागे चतुथपरि च्छेदः | RR
मा न भ्रवमदं Was श्दयासमितिषपकः। निनिमित्ताऽनुरागे यः स् प्रेमा परमश्चिति ॥ ९१॥ अन्याशेषतया बुद्धेः SVG न सखेष्वपि।
अतः प्रियतमः खात्मा नाऽन्योऽते दधिकः प्रियः ॥ १९॥ आत्मत्वेनाऽऽत्मनि प्रेमा न सुखलवाद्यपेच्ते |
अहं स्यामिति चेद् यसमात् सुखं स्यामिति नेष्यते॥ १३॥ तथा च GAAS TATA वाऽऽत्मताऽपि च।
feu प्रयोजिका सिद्धा खतःप्रेमात्मतेव तु ॥ १४॥ तस्माद् वस्तुत त्य्व प्रिया नापाधिकत्वतः | च्रापाधिकीोतरप्रोतिरस्थिरत्वान् न ताकौ ॥ १५॥ प्रोतिरन्यत्र चाऽनित्याऽविबेकाद्येः सुखादिषु! आत्मप्रीतिस्त् नित्याऽतानित्यानन्दः पुमान् मतः ॥ १६॥ अत्मनः प्रियतां afgafe पश्येत् समाहिता | सवानिशायिनोँ afe सुखाभ किं न HERA ॥ १७॥ प्रियद् शने बुद्धः सुखं लेकेषु दश्यते |
अताऽनुमेयं परमप्रियदृष्वया परं सुखम् ॥ १८॥ प्रात्माथत्वेन सवच प्रोतिरात्मा wa: प्रियः
इति शश्वच्छतिः ore आत्मृश्टिविधित्सया ॥ १० ॥ तताऽप्यनुपमं ज्ञेयं प्रियात्मक्षणतः सुखम् |
WAG तत् सुखं धौरा जोवन्मुक्ता मद्ाधियः ॥ de Ut अन्तरात्मसुखं सत्यमविसंवादि योागिनम्।
श्रपश्यन् AI बाद्यसुखार्थो वच्िता जनः ॥ २९॥
Re
साङ्स)ःरस्य
सुखाशया afe: पश्यन् द दो डोद्धियरन्धरकेः । TAA: सुखं वेत्ति न ATER ॥ RP ॥
द्ःख रभ्यान् SVAN परिणामेऽतिद्ःख : म् । AQAA सुखाभासान् धिक् खात्मरसुखराधकान् IPS दति ओरओोविज्ञानभिच्विरचिते साद्धसारे ्रात्मानात्मनाः
प्रियाप्रियलवेघम्व॑परिच्छेदः॥ x Il
अथ पञ्चमः परिच्छेदः |
परिच्छेद चयेणाक्तं सखिदानन्दषपकम् | गीयमानं श्रतिस्त्योरात्मने लचणएचयम ॥ १॥ तरैपतेत्यमन्येषां लक्छणं चरतं ASA | आभ्यां तु गुणदोषाभ्यां विवेके द्षहत् परः ॥ २ ॥ नर्गण्यसगुणत्वादि वेधरण्यपराण्यपि ।
नि aed स्पात् TRAGIC: परम् ॥ ३॥ धियेाऽथाकारया वृत्या जनितत्वात् सुखाद् यः | सामानाधिकरण्येन कल्पन्ते लाघवाद् धियाम् ॥ ४॥ मदद्ाटेजडत्वेन तद्ग त्श्च AST HA | कार्यकारणसाजाल्यं दृष्टं लाके दि सवतः ॥ ५,॥ श्रत Bla बेाधमाचतया सिध्यति लाघवात् | गणाः सवे प्रलत्याद् विकाराश्वेतरेऽखिलाः।। ६ ॥ आत्मा त् निगेणसदत् कुरस्य मता बधः | चितेः कूरस्थसजञन्ञा तु स्थिरत्वाट् गिरिकूटवत् ७ 11
उत्तरभागे पञ्चमपटिच्छेदः। RY
ले पश्चेतरसम्बन्धे तद्रपेरुपरक्तता |
यथा विषयसूम्बन्धाद् बडा भवति वासना ॥ ८ ॥ भाण्डाद् TUAW च तत्तटूव्यस्य वासना | रोपदेत् च सम्बन्धः सङ्गः सम्बन्धि WAI ll ८ ॥ wal निरच्नाऽसङ्गा निलंपञ्चोच्यते पमान्। नभपुष्करपचादि दृष्टान्तैः परमर्षिभिः 11 १०॥ चिन्माचानन्तशत्तयन्धो प॒मर्थपवनेरिताः । सत््वादिशक्तये यान्ति ITY द् रूपताम् । 2 ॥ अत ३ षिद् त्मेव जगतः सन्निधानतः।
मणिवत् प्ररकत्वेन जडानामयसामिव 11 १९॥ पुमानेव HHA जगद्धताऽखिलेश्वरः |
GAY BOIS यस्माज् जडवरगः प्रवर्तते ॥ १३ ॥ करणानि च SVG राजाथमधिकारिवत् | भोग्यजातं मनामन्तिण्यपयन्ति खभावतः ॥ १४॥ तेभीमग्य्क्तमात्मानमावेद् ALA | TAATAU AT HH राजेवाऽऽत्माऽखिलेश्वरः 1 १५॥ धनादेरोश्वरा द दा दे दस्येन्दियमोश्वरम्।
इ न्दरियस्सेश्वरो वुद्धिदेरात्मेश्वरः परः ॥ १९ ॥ करख्यस्येश्वरस्याऽन्यो नाऽस्ति प्रेरकं इत्यतः। TARA AAA द्रष्टा वे पर मेश्वरः ॥ १७॥ अन्धस्छाऽ5गन्तके शयं बह्व्यापारसङ्लम्। निव्यापारस्य (AC TANG AAAI: | YE ॥
RE
साह्यसारस्य
TAN MAA यात्मा शक्तिमण्डलताण्डवः |
संसार तन्निव्त्तिं च माययाऽऽप्राति SAAT ॥ १८ ॥ सवातिश्णयि निर्दीषमेश्र्यमिदमात्मनः।
पश्यते योगिने ब्राद्यमयश्वयें SMTA ॥ २० ॥ बाद्यस्याऽऽत्माचते Sel टे दस्याऽन्मेन्द्रियाणि च। बद्विरात्मेन्द्रियान्तस्य बुद्धेरात्मा तु चिन्नभः॥ २१ ॥ अरत आत्मावधित्वेन परमात्मोचते चितिः। तथाऽन्तःकरणेर्यागाज् जोव इत्युच्ते चितिः ॥ ररे ॥ अविद्याकायरददितः परमात्मति च ai | ..;
यस्य य् व्यापकं तस्य AT ब्रह्माऽता धरादि कम् RSI परकत्यन्तं HAT ब्रह्म खसकायाद्यपेच्तया |
सेश्वर साह्वा द्ऽपि चितिरोवाऽनमन्यते । २४ ॥
परे वा परभात्मलादिकं तु न जड कचित् अध्यस्षव्यापकत्वाभ्यां परं ब्रह्म तु चेतनः ॥ > ॥ तस्याऽध्यत्तं व्यापकं च न देत्विधयाऽसि दि । AAU नभाराशिर विभक्तीकर्पकः ॥ २६ ॥ सेऽतश्चिद्रनविन्नानघनात्मघनसंज्ञकः प्रकाशस्याऽनपेकतत्वात् खस्य द्रष्टुतयाऽपि च । २७ ॥ खप्रकाशः TATA इतरे तदिलक्षणाः | भागोऽभ्यवहतिः सा च करसे नाऽस्ति धोष्विव ॥ oe 11 धोठृत्तिप्रतिकिननाख्यगोणएमागा तु Araya |
साक्ताट् Malas TRAY De FATT Se ॥
उत्तरभागे पञ्चमपरिच्ेदः। २७
विना विकारं द्रष्टत्वात् ara ठ क्ताऽखिलस्य सः । चत्यापरागरूपत्ात् साक्तिताऽप्यक्रवा चितः ॥ ३० ॥ उपलक्तषणमेवेद मपि व्याव्त्तये जडात् |
अतः पुमाननिदेश्योाऽणश्च SHY FAA २१ ॥ विना दश्यमदश्यत्वादव्यक्तथाच्यते सतः।
अदृश्यो दृश्यते UBD FATA । BP ॥ we चाऽस्यमादभे चित् तथा BEST ~
, चिति विश्वस्य सङ्गश्च विश्वं भासेते Bat ॥ ३३॥ विश्वाधारेाऽप्यतः प्न्यमिति चिद्गोयते खवत्। दग्यद्षान् खषाबृ्िदर श्थारोप्य निर्मले ॥ ३४ ॥ आद् शं AAA व्यान्नि SHEA तु तप्यते । वस्तुतश्चिति asa मलो दृण्याधितः सदा । ३५ ॥ अतश्च fare: खस्थे निद्ाषश्चाच्यते पमान् सजातोयषु वधम्यलक्षणा नाऽसि यद् भिद् ॥ ३६ । अत रात्रा समः प्राक्त एेकर्प्याच् च Vay
दे दाध्यक्ततया दे दो पुयभिव्यक्तितः पुमान् ॥ ३७ ॥ एकाकित्वाददितीयः केवलश्चोच्यते तु सः | चिच्छक्तयप्रतिबन्धेन प्रोच्यतेऽनाव्रतः पुमान् ae ॥ सवेखामितया चाऽऽत्मा सेचन्नः स्ेचवेदनात्। इत्सरेावर धोपद्मद लबत्तिषु लीलया ॥ Be ॥ चरन्निवाऽऽनन्दमोनान् भृच्जञाना दस उच्यते | इकारेण बद्दियाति सकारेण विशन् पुनः॥ ४० ॥.
ES
Ge aTe: |
प्राणदृत्याऽनय चाऽपि Waa A उच्यते । शरोरागरिडद्ामगुदायां वुद्धिभायया 11 82 1 व्यज्यमानस्तया साधं सखपन्निव TEAS: | चिगुणात्म्मकमायां खां सान्निध्यात् परिणामयन् ।। ४२॥ मायोति कथ्यते चाऽत्मा ACHAT SAAT TA | START AAA TSA तु षोडश । ४३ ॥ ae: कलास्त aay निरंशत्वात् स॒ निष्कलः | अशब्दः GUHA खामो ATA तु चतसः ४४ 1 च्रतोऽदमिति शब्देन चिन्माचं प्रोच्यते Te: । SAAC: सववेत्ता सर्वकलाऽदयः पुमान् 11 ४५ ॥ सामान्यादुच्यते ART राजा सवनराधिपः। आत्मादतस्य वेण जातिमात्रेण वर्णनात् ॥ ४६ ॥ प्रलये fe विजानोयदेतश्न्यत्वमात्मनाम् | FAFA Maal AMAIA FAA 11 ४७ 11 fren नित्यनिद्ःखत्वात् पुमान् मतः | दूत्यादिगुरशस्ताक्त दिश खान्भवन च ॥ ४८ ॥ वेधग्यादात्मनाऽनात्मविवेकः क्रियतां बुधैः
परिच्छद् चतुष्कं ए TAA: सुविस्तरात्।
` धम्यगण SAIS ध्यायिनामाश मुक्तिदः ॥ ४० ॥
tfa ओ्रोविज्ञानभिक्लविरविते स्धसारे ्रात्मतरधमं-
गणपरिच्छंदः॥ ॐ ॥
अथ पष्ठः परिच्छदः | विवेकमेव सक्या मत्वा तदनुभ्रयते। राजयोगं यथा कुयात् समासेन ATA 11 १॥ अशक्ता राजयागस्य दटयेगेऽधिकारवान्। वासिष्ठे हि वसिष्ठाय भुखुण्डनेवमोरितम् ॥ २॥ ज्ञानाव्त्ती राजयोग प्राणायामासने Ee खे तेऽङ्गतयाऽन्येन्यै सेव्ये शत्तयनृसारतः। ३ ॥ विषयेऽनन्तद्ाषा ये अ्रनिस्म्रतिसुमोरिता त आदो परिद्रषटव्याशचत्तख्येथाय योगिभिः ॥ ४॥ कामबोजान्यनन्तानि GAMA यद्र दि | तचाऽरवोनिभ न्ञानपण्यसस्य न वधते ॥ ५॥ द्ाषदृश्यग्रिसन्द गधे HAAN तु चेतसि । गुरुशस्तदलेः छट TIA तदिवध॑ते ॥ ९ ॥ सत्येष्वसुन्तां Wart तथा रग्येव्वरम्यताम्। सुखेषु प्रचर दःखं पश्यन् AT विरज्यते ॥ ७ ॥ ब्रह्मले केऽपि नरका विनाशमेध्यपूरितः। TAY खाधिकरन्यस्लेगुण्यादपि दुःखयुक् ॥ ८ ॥ तचत्येरपि सुक्थं यत्यते जन्मभोरुभिः। अते WA समासेन लाकः साऽपि द्ःखयुक् ॥ ८ ददं मे स्यादिदं मा स्यादितीच्छाव्यथितं मनः। खभावात् तेन विज्ञेयं द्: खं चित्तेन सङ्गतिः ॥ १०॥
+^
Fee -=a
i ER We दन्डं aaa | GE A REA: |) 17 : ETAL OE A ES GEA TATA FREMS A | १> TENG ऋनन्तद्राण्टश्चा TRS नान्वे | मावाविवकनः Tena चिन्तयन् खटा _ १३ . रट तदिति निंर, cee न ee ¦ DATARS FAT स्ववमव प्रकाशते || १९ :: बृद्धिवाधात्मके Serr देः परो विभः । Rest चद्रादिव्य इव्यकाययाऽनदिन्तयेत् \। १५ ।। वर्तिवेधा घरच्िट्रमिव नाश्यल्य ईच्छते। वम्तुते वर्निवाधाऽदं पृणा व्यामवदक्यः ॥ WE ॥ WIS दृश्ये सवं तद् वृत्तिरुच्यते ।
APNE BRASS साक्तात् तदोदिता FIR NYO RAAT हि वृत्या वृत्तिप्रकाशने | बरज्निधाराक्षन्यने च गोरवादिति निथितम् ॥ १८ ॥ चप क्रभयक्राधनाभमेादमदेसथा | देषाभिमानकरापण्यनिद्रालस्यस्मरादिभिः ॥ १९ ॥ धर्माधरमश्च सम्पृणा बृहिर्दुःखमयो तु मे । - MATA दशयल्येव भास्करायेव रोगिणः ॥ २० ॥ अं सवेगतं शान्तं परमात्मघनं प्रएवि । अचिन््यचिन्भाचनभो विश्चदपणमन्तयम् | २१९॥
उत्तरभागे षणपरि च्छेदः | 8९
निरच्ञनं निराधारं निगुणं निरुपद्रवम् |
निविशेषं सजातीयात् समस्ताथावभासकम् ॥ २९॥
ब्रह्मविष्णुमदेशाद्याः खावरान्ताश्च चनाः |
अवेधम्यात्मकाभेदाद दमित्यनुचिन्तयेत् ॥ BB
अद्मन्धे च पुरूषाः समचिड्ामरूपिणः।
अत आत्मक एवाऽदमिति श्रुतिषु Maa ॥ ₹४ ॥ `
इति पश्चन् खभागेश्च योगो विश्च प्रपूजयेत् |
आत्मयागोऽप्ययं प्रोक्तः श्रुतयुक्ता ARTA TATA
सवश्रतस्थमात्मानं RTA चाऽत्मनि ।
सम पश्यन्नात्मयाजो खाराज्यमधिगच्छति ॥ २९ ॥
इत्येवं मनृनाऽप्यात्मयागो ज्ञानाङ्गमोरितः।
तस्रादभयद्ानेन खमभेगाद्यचेनेन च 11 २७ |
WAAAY WAM AAA aA |
ब्रह्मविष्णुश्त्रादोनां भोगे रागश्च दोयते ॥ शट 1 तेषां खसाम्यदृष्याऽनः साम्य योगो विचिन्तयेत् |
CUT प्रलये चव सवावस्थासु सवदा ॥ Se ॥
सवेषामकर्पत्व दष्टरागादिकं He |
विष्एवाद्या मदे yey ना अपि नाऽधिकाः ॥ ३० ॥
मत्ताऽताऽलं तदं अय रविवेकिजनप्रियेः।
गुणकमादिमिः किच्चिन् निरोच्याऽधिकमात्मनः। २९॥
तदथं यतते लाके नाऽहं पश्यामि मेऽधिकम |
तथा न्यून न पश्यामि यद्तिक्रमशङ्गया ॥ ३९ ॥
G
६
सद्धयसस्स्य
ZA देत्यजयायेव यतिष्ये ASAT |
AS यथा तथेवाऽन्ये AAR नारका जनाः ॥ BR ॥ दृश्यन्ते Salad प्रेम्णा पिढभराढसतादिवत्।
क ईश ईशितच्या वा कः अष्टः कऽधमेाऽपि वा ॥ ३९ ॥ अभिन्ने भेद् दृष्या स्यान् ग्टत्योभयमिति शरुतिः | विड्ोमखेकरपेषु ई णनोशादिरूपकः ॥ २५ ॥ रूपभेद दसन् Vt स्फाटिके रूपभेदवत् |
धियां Sa: पमानेके THEN इवेयते ॥ ३६ ॥
वक चमादिशपाद्येमायोव TSSITTA |
मामालिद्ध निराकारं विविधाकारधारिणौ 11 ३७॥ मायैवेका डि Baan मादयत्यखिला faa |
Gat dal बुद्विभेद्ादम्बुभेदाद् यथा रवेः 11 रे८ ॥ व्योम्न हिट्ररूपेण भेदः कुम्भादिभेदतः।
अतः प्र IEAM: सवदा सवगोऽव्ययः ॥ ३८ ॥ अद्धमन्ये च तचाऽदहा शचुमिचादिधोमषा। ` AMMA दराविन्द्रे सवेश्रतगणे तथा । ४० ॥ उन्तमाधममध्यत्वविभागा मायया सषा | चिगणात्मकमायायास्तेविध्यादात्मनेऽपि दि । ४१॥ उन्तमाधममध्यत्वचे विध्यं नेव दि खतः।
यथा SS तथाऽन्यच चित्प्रकाशऽयमव्ययः ॥ ४९ ॥ व्यक्तताव्यक्ततामाचभेदे] न्तर बाद्धयोः | एवमन्येऽपि पुरुषा बद्वमुक्ताविशेषतः ॥ ४२॥
उत्तरभागे षपरि च्छेदः | ४३
ई शानोशविशेषाच् च पुरुषार्था न ATA: | मदानिद्रेव मे साध्यो द्ःखभोगदरा प्रिया ॥ ४४॥ अप्रिया मुढचित्तानामसध्वौ धोदतात्मनाम् | चिदादर्शे मयि धियो यद्यपि प्रतिकिम्बिनम् ॥ १५ ॥ तत्वतो नैव दोषाय तथाऽपि त्याज्यमेव तत्! सखभावाद् सख हेयत्वं खानुभत्या fe सिध्यति ॥ ४६ ॥ यथा केऽपि परस्याऽपि seu न दिदृक्षति । AAMT SAINT साध्वोयमन्तप्यते ॥ ४७॥ निदषं खामिनं दष्टा निदेषा स्यात् पतित्रता । एवमस्या STASIS सवदा ॥ ४८ ॥ PAA ACKER A मदथामनन्यगाम्। यथेकरपतोापाधियेगायगद् शखदा ॥ ४८ ॥ आद् शंस्याऽमलस्येव चिन्नभादषणस्यमे। दृश्यबद्धिगता दषाः साक्तात् तदृष्टरि प्रभो ॥ ५०॥ न सन्ति मयि मादाद्या भास्करे भास्यद्षवत् | TAIT खमात्मानं त्यक्ता मह्ावमागता ॥ ५९ ॥ मु चते दुःखबन्धाद् धोन FATA न बन्धनम्। RAAF Asia धोदुःखप्रतिबिम्ननम् ॥ ys ॥ येऽन्ये बन्धे ATS: साऽपि Fada war जाय दादि चयावस्थासाकी ताभिविवजितः ॥ ५३॥ अहं पुणश्िदादित्य उदयास्तविवजितः।
द्पणे मुखवद् विश्वं मयि are न ताल्तिकम् ॥ ५४॥
G 2
apace
विभत्वेऽपि च बाद्यान्तः सुषश्याद्ावद्श्नात् |
मयि वाऽन्यच वा पुंसि केवलानुभवे विभा ॥ ५५ ॥ भाति यत् तदिवत्ता धो प्रतिविम्बात्मकत्वतः।
Went रजतवट् aaa मयि न दषलत् ॥ ५६ ॥ मरीच तायवत् तद्वद् व्योमादौ नगरादिवत् । कालचयेऽपि नास्त्येव मयि fd सनातने ॥ ५७॥ अन्यचाऽस्वथवा AT FRAT मम तेन किम् | मयि सवै यथा व्योन्नि सवेचाऽदं यथा नभः॥ ५८ ॥ न सवै मयि सवे ASS चालेपतः Gar |
अत एवाऽविभागाख्याभेदेन रौरनोरवत् ॥ ५८. ॥ ज्ञानात्मकमिदं विश्वं गायन्ति परमर्षयः |
जगन् मम मदथेत्वान् मच्छरौरसुखादि वत् ॥ ६० ॥ यथा मम तथाऽन्येषां HAA धियो भमः।
वस्तुतस्तु न कस्याऽपि किमपि व्यभिचारतः 1 ६१॥ खामित्वस्याऽ्रवत्वेन पान्थस्याऽऽवासगे SAA |
एकं चिन्माचमस्तोद WE ्एन्यं निर्जनम् ॥ ६९ ॥ BAMA SHAT तच न जगन् न जगक्करिया। दश्यते सबेदश्या्या खखबुद्धिपरम्परा ॥ ६२ ॥ चिन्मण्डलमदादरं प्रतिविम्बमुपागता |
काचिद् व्य्तं कचित् Seal नभः सवच ति्ठति॥ ६४ यथा तथा चिदाकाशं धोद शेऽन्यच च स्थितम् | चिदाकाशमयं विश्वं यताऽता धोरितस्ततः॥ ६५ ॥
उत्तरभागे षष्परिष्छेदः | ४५
भमन्तो तच तेव TAA घटादिवत् |
धमाधमा जन्मम्टत्य् सुखदुःखादि चाऽखिलम् ॥ ६९ ॥
HATA सषा Ay इव जन्मादिकं मम |
दश्ययागवियेगाभ्यां चिते जन्मविनाशधोः ॥ ६७ ॥
अभिव्यक्तयनमिव्यक्तिद्षाभ्यां शशिना यथा |
ACG भवजन्मग्छल्यु-
SAAT AAR धियः।
Gara atfacfared
घनेरुपेतर्विंगते रवेः किम्॥ ६८॥
Tad सततं ध्यायन्नेकाय्मनसा BN: |
सास्षात्क UM AAS वागगोचरष्टपतः ॥ ६८ ॥
wey निमल शान्तं मनलत्यजति चेत् क्षणम ।
तद् व दश्यसंस्कारशषात् सङ्भ्यतोद्धियम् ॥ ७० ॥
उल्थितान॒ल्थितांसच इन्दियारोन् पनः ga: |
fasting वज्रेण इन्यादि द्र गिरोनिव ॥ ७१॥
दति ग्रोविनज्ञानभिक्तविरवचिते agate राजयोागप्रकार-
परिच्छेदः ॥ * ॥
अथ सत्तमः परि च्छेदः | एवमात्मानुभविने जोवन्मृक्तस्य TATA | UE व्ये भवेद् यन ज्ञानाज्ञानपरोक्तणम् ॥ ९ ॥ FAUT मननाद् वाऽऽपि BIAS TATA | SAS गुरुमविद्वंसं स्याच् चाऽज्ञा ज्ञाभिमान्यपि॥ २॥ नेश्वयानागतन्नत्नादि कं ज्ञानस्य लक्तणम्। तदतेऽपि दि केवल्यं योगभाष्यक्लतेरितम् ॥ ३ ॥ श्रातस्मातानि वाक्यानि ज्ञानिने मेक्षभागिनः। लक्तकाण्येव लिख्यन्ते विश्वासातिशयाय वे ॥ ४ ॥ यच स्ीणि भूतानि BAITS विजानतः । तच AT ATS: कः शाक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः ॥ ५॥ यः सवेचाऽनभिनलेदस्तत् तत् प्राप्य प्रभाष्भम् । नाऽभिनन्दति न दृष्टि तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता । ६ ॥ न विस्मरति सवच यथा सततगो गतिम् | न विस्मरति निश्ेतयं चिन्माचं प्राज्ञधोस्तथा ।। ७ 11 नेदेति नाऽस्तमायाति सुखे दुःखे मुखप्रभा । यथापूवस्थितियस्य स MIAH SIA ८ ॥ ये जागत्ति GIT यस्य जायन् न विद्यते | यस्य निवासने बोधः स॒ जीवन्मुक्त उच्यते | ९ ॥ रागदेषभयादौीनामन्षूप चरन्नपि | योऽन्त्यामवद् तयच्छः स॒ जोवन्मुक्तं उच्यते ॥ Qo यस्य नाऽदङते भावे बुद्धियस्य न लिप्यते |
उत्तरभागे सप्तमप्ररिच्छदः। ge
HAAHAA वाऽपि स MIAH उच्यते ॥ A I अपि शोतरूचावके अ्यष्णेऽपोन्द् मण्डले | अप्यधःप्रसवल्य्रौ ओवन्मक्तो न AFIT: ॥ ९९ ॥ चिद्त्मन इमा FAAS शक्तयः | दूत्यस्याऽऽश्चयजालेषु नाऽभ्युदे ति कुट दलम् 11 १३॥ पर व्यसनिनो नारो BATT TERA | तदृवाऽऽखाद यत्यन्तनेर सङ्गर सायनम् | १४॥
एवं तच्छे परे द्धे धोरो विश्रान्तिमागतः
तद् वाऽऽखाद यत्यन्तबेदिव्यवदर न्नपि ॥ VY.
यो नित्यमध्यात्ममये नित्यमन्तमुखः सुर | TA प्रसन्नश्च गिराविव HVE ॥ १६ ॥ परानन्दरसाक्तगधो रमते खात्मनाऽऽत्मनि। सवेकमपरित्यागो नित्यदा निरामयः ॥ VO ॥ न पुण्येन न पापेन नेतरेणाऽपि लिप्यते |
येन केन चिद्च्छन्ना येन केन चिद्एशितः ॥ ९८ | यच कचन शायो च स॒ सम्राडिव राजने। वणेधमाअमाचार ARAN AAS AT | १९८ ॥ निगच्छति जगज्जनालात् पच्ञरादिव RAD | वाचामतोतविषमेा विषयाशादशेङितः ॥ Po ॥ कामप्यपगतः शोभां शर दोव नभस्तलम् | निःसोचो निनमस्कारः पज्यपजाविवजितः ॥ २९ ॥ VAM वा विय॒क्ता वा सद्चारनयक्रमेः।
8c साद्कसार्स्य
एतावदेव खल लिङ्मलिङ्गमन्त संशान्तसस्टतिचिरभ्रमनिवतस्य | तद्यस्य यन्मदनकेपविषाद लेभ- मादापद्ामनुदिनं निपुणं तनृत्वम् ॥ २९ ॥ तुयविश्रान्तियुक्तस्य प्रतितोपस्य भवाणेवात् | न HAASE न श्ुतिसतिविथमेः ॥ ९३ ॥ तनु त्यजतु वा तों ATTY VEIT | ज्ञानसम्मरातिसमये मुक्त एवाऽमलाशयः ॥ २४॥ न मान्ता नभसः VB न पाताले न तले । सवाशासङ्गये चेतःसये मोस इति अतेः ॥ २५॥ HAAS त्यक्ता ASS RAV | विशत्यद हं मुक्तत्वं पवनेऽसखन्दतामिव ॥ २९ It अनाप्ताखिलभेलादि प्रतिकिन्ने हि यादशी | स्याद् द् पणे द्पणता केवलात्मखरूपिणौ ॥ २७ ॥ अद त्वं जगदित्याद् प्रशान्ते दश्यसम्धरम। स्यात् MEM केवलता A TIANA 11 रट ॥ fear चेत्यरदितमनन्तमजर शिवम् | अनादि मध्यनिलयं यद् नाधि निरामयम् । २८ ॥ न प्न्य नाऽपि चाऽऽकारं न दभ्यं न च द शंनम्। अनाख्यमनभिव्यक्तं तत् किचिद् वशिष्यते ॥ se इति खीविच्ानभिच्तविर चिते साह्धसारे जीवन्यक्तपर मत्योः परिच्छेदः ॥ * 1 इति सा्यसास्स्यात्तरभागः। साह्यसाराख्यं प्रकरणं र्माप्तम्।